Depressions (A6.3); Cliffs (B11.), and Gullies (B19.)

[BattleSchool]

A) Regardless of what level an observer is at in 65L5, he can never see INTO N7, because it is a Blind Hex per B11.21.
B) An observer at Level 2 in N3 has LOS INTO N7 because it satisfies the requirements of A6.3.
(Feel free to disagree with either or both of the above conclusions.)

A6.3 DEPRESSIONS: Certain terrain types are defined as being relatively narrow slits carved into the surface below ground level. Although they present no obstacle to LOS between units at or above ground level, units IN Depressions are often out of LOS of even relatively nearby higher level units. A unit must be at least one level higher for every hex of range to units IN a Depression to have a LOS to them [EXC: Units with a clear LOS between them through other continuous Depression hexsides (exclusive of vertices) need not count those intervening Depression hexes in determining the necessary elevation advantage]. A unit in a ground level hex always has a LOS INTO an adjacent level -1 Depression hex, but a unit two hexes away must be at level 1 or higher to have a LOS INTO that hex, and a unit three hexes away must be at level 2 or higher.

1. What specific rule section(s) would you cite in support of a blocked or clear LOS from level 2 of M5 INTO N7, and why?

2. What specific rule section(s) would you cite in support of a blocked or clear LOS from level 1 of M5 INTO N7, and why?

 

[ctewks]

It seems you may have answered your own question citing A6.3

Firer / Target / Range
Lvl0 / Lvl -1 / =1 LOS Clear
Lvl1 / Lvl -1 / <=2 LOS Clear
Lvl2 / Lvl -1 / <=3 LOS Clear

 

[jrv]

Although the artwork is shown off the hexside, my understanding of depression cliffs is that the hexside is actually the cliff and the artwork just indicates which hexsides are cliffs per B11.1. Per B11.2 the "black art depiction of a Depression cliff is treated as part of the Depression artwork." LOS from M5 level two should be clear.

Because the black depiction is treated as part of the Depression artwork, LOS from level one M5 is clear because per A6.3 the unit has LOS INTO N6 and then across the Depression artwork INTO N7.

JR

 

[BattleSchool]

Although the artwork is shown off the hexside, my understanding of depression cliffs is that the hexside is actually the cliff and the artwork just indicates which hexsides are cliffs per B11.1. Per B11.2 the "black art depiction of a Depression cliff is treated as part of the Depression artwork." LOS from M5 level two should be clear.

I agree that LOS from M5 level two is clear, because the unit has sufficient elevation at a range of three hexes to see INTO N7.

Because the black depiction is treated as part of the Depression artwork, LOS from level one M5 is clear because per A6.3 the unit has LOS INTO N6 and then across the Depression artwork INTO N7

Let's ignore the cliff artwork, as we agree that it has no impact on the LOS. While I agree that a unit at level one in M5 has LOS INTO N6, I am less certain that this unit also has LOS INTO N7.

My understanding was/is that the LOS must cross consecutive, Depression hexsides and remain within the Depression depiction, as illustrated in the A6.3 EX (and the B20.2 EX). I thought that this was in keeping with the "narrow slit" nature of Depressions.

However, it appears that the exception in A6.3 permits a more liberal interpretation with respect to drawing LOS from higher elevations INTO a Depression. This interpretation appears to ignore Depression depictions, and is only dependent upon crossing consecutive Depression hexsides (exclusive of vertices).

I don't recall seeing any Depression depictions--including Depression cliffs--that intersect a vertex. So the parenthetical reference to "vertices" had me wondering if the more liberal interpretation was the intent of A6.3 after all. If so, the A6.3 illustration offers nothing to support it. In fact, the EX appears to contradict the EXC. Nor could I find another illustrative EX in the ASLRB that supported this interpretation of the EXC.

A6.3 EX: A unit in 5FF6 cannot see INTO EE8 because it is two hexes away with only a 1 one level elevation advantage. However, a unit in GG7 can see INTO EE8 because it has a LOS INTO Depression hex FF7 and then along the Depression depiction INTO EE8, whereas FF6 cannot trace a straight LOS INTO an adjacent Depression hex, and then on INTO EE8.

I suppose it comes down to what the A6.3 EXC means by "a clear LOS between them through other continuous Depression hexsides (exclusive of vertices)." Or not.

 

[Philippe D.]

Now I just reread A6.3, and whereas I always thought what was needed was a LOS through the Depression depiction (as mentioned in the EX), the rule itself only mentions going through Depression hexsides. So I think I'd be with JR (for whatever that's worth to him!) on this.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

However, it appears that the exception in A6.3 permits a more liberal interpretation with respect to drawing LOS from higher elevations INTO a Depression. This interpretation appears to ignore Depression depictions, and is only dependent upon crossing consecutive Depression hexsides (exclusive of vertices).

No, the LOS must stay withing the Depression artwork - confirmed by a Q&A, IIRC (and it is also what e.g., Chapter K says).

I don't recall seeing any Depression depictions--including Depression cliffs--that intersect a vertex.

There are some Sunken Roads where the depiction is over the verticies.

 

[DougRim]

No, the LOS must stay withing the Depression artwork - confirmed by a Q&A, IIRC (and it is also what e.g., Chapter K says).



There are some Sunken Roads where the depiction is over the verticies.

Klas, any idea where said Q&A is? My most recent Q and A file is the Perry Sez from Game Squad ASL Forum, version 20, shown by your link above. I can't find it there nor in the Official MMP Q&A but I might just be not seeing it.

 

[Russ Isaia]

No, the LOS must stay withing the Depression artwork - confirmed by a Q&A, IIRC (and it is also what e.g., Chapter K says).

This?

B19.1 GULLIES: Whenever brush or woods are
depicted on both sides of a gully depiction in a
gully hex, they are considered part of that gully
depiction (thus for example, hindering or
blocking LOS along the level -1 gully depiction).
(p. K10) (This does not apply in streams; P4.1)

Kind of indirect -- the example following 19.2 relies on artwork, however.

 

[jrv]

This?

B19.1 GULLIES: Whenever brush or woods are
depicted on both sides of a gully depiction in a
gully hex, they are considered part of that gully
depiction (thus for example, hindering or
blocking LOS along the level -1 gully depiction).
(p. K10) (This does not apply in streams; P4.1)

Kind of indirect -- the example following 19.2 relies on artwork, however.

Not that.

JR

 

[BattleSchool]

Now I just reread A6.3, and whereas I always thought what was needed was a LOS through the Depression depiction (as mentioned in the EX), the rule itself only mentions going through Depression hexsides. So I think I'd be with JR (for whatever that's worth to him!) on this.

Be a man!

Disagree with JRV and Klas.

 

[BattleSchool]

No, the LOS must stay withing the Depression artwork - confirmed by a Q&A, IIRC (and it is also what e.g., Chapter K says).

Funny that, I read page K12 last night looking for something to confirm the exceptional part of the A6.3 exception.

There are some Sunken Roads where the depiction is over the verticies.

Thanks! That helps, I think.

Until this week, I had no history of Depression.

 

[DougRim]

Not to disagree with Klas, but in order to gain further clarification, let me just recall that the intro to chapter K says that it does not supersede the actual rules in any way. If I have found the right reference in chapter k, it cites B19.2 as its rule source. B19.2 does not deal with LOS from a higher elevation INTO a gully as we are discussing here. It only talks about LOS along a two or more depression level hexes at the same level. Therefore, I believe the chapter k reference is erroneous, no?

 

[BattleSchool]

Here is the relevant passage from Chapter K, and a snippet of the map in question.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Perhaps a Q&A was just sent to MMP, but no answer was returned. Anyway, this was discussed at length a couple of years ago, those threads are probably still around.

 

[Philippe D.]

B19.2 only talks about same-level Gully LOS, not about the conditions that allow one to wave the "as many levels as the range" condition to see INTO a Gully. Not sure it's relevant to our present discussion.

 

[DougRim]

B19.2 only talks about same-level Gully LOS, not about the conditions that allow one to wave the "as many levels as the range" condition to see INTO a Gully. Not sure it's relevant to our present discussion.

I am! It's the central issue: Does A6.3 or B19.2 govern the LOS from M5 to N7? That is the question!

 

[BattleSchool]

B19.2 only talks about same-level Gully LOS, not about the conditions that allow one to wave the "as many levels as the range" condition to see INTO a Gully. Not sure it's relevant to our present discussion.

What I think the second sentence underlined in red above is saying is that two conditions must be met in order for LOS from 24H6 to H3 to exist.

The first condition is addressed by A6.3, namely that a unit must have sufficient elevation to see INTO a Depression.

The second condition is reinforced by B19.2, but is also addressed (perhaps unsatisfactorily) in the illustrated EX in A6.3. In addition to having LOS INTO a Depression, a unit must have a clear LOS (drawn within the confines of the Depression depiction) to see farther along the Depression.

The Chapter K example reinforces this dual requirement. The exception in A6.3 suggests that an alternate method of drawing LOS between higher elevations and a Depression Location also exist.

In the Board 25* EX below, the thin green LOS drawn from M4 to Q2 meets both of the requirements illustrated in the A6.3 EX. A unit in M4 has LOS INTO P2 because it meets range-to-elevation requirement of A6.3. It also satisfies the requirement (in B19.2 and the A6.3 EX) of being able to extend this LOS INTO Q2 without leaving the confines of the gully depiction.

The case put forward by JRV and Doug can be represented by the grey LOS traced from M3 to Q2. For this LOS to be clear, it must also satisfy two requirements. The first is identical to that in the M4 EX above: a unit in M3 has a clear LOS INTO P2, as shown by the thick green line. The second condition is the contentious part. Although the grey line clearly crosses the P2-Q2 Depression hexside without touching either hexside vertex), the question arises as to whether this constitutes a "clear LOS" through other continuous Depression hexsides. In other words, does the A6.3 exception override the requirements listed in the A6.3 EX?

A6.3 [EXC: Units with a clear LOS between them through other continuous Depression hexsides (exclusive of vertices) need not count those intervening Depression hexes in determining the necessary elevation advantage].

*To avoid any confusion, treat the Wadi as a gully.

 

[jrv]

Perhaps a Q&A was just sent to MMP, but no answer was returned. Anyway, this was discussed at length a couple of years ago, those threads are probably still around.

The reason we can't find it as a Q&A is because it was issued as a "Tips From the Trenches" in ASL Journal 11, p. 45.

Remember that units with LOS INTO a Depression hex can see further along that Depressiono (A6.3) just like units IN the Depression can (B19.2) as long as the LOS does not leave the Depression artwork. See the example in A6.3 and contrast that situation (using the B19.2 EX on page B18) to a unit on the bridge in 12E9, which can see INTO F8 but not G8, since the LOS from E9-G8 crosses the ground level depiction in F8.

JR

 

[Honosbinda]

Good catch but we can't use a 'Tip from the Trenches' for this resolution as some kind of official errata (in my mind).

In Chris' desert board example above, M3 has no LOS into Q2 because it doesn't meet the height requirement and the LOS does not stay within the depression depiction when crossing P2. Therefore there is no clear LOS allowing us to ignore P2, because the level 0 terrain in P2 blocks. But here I am relying on an interpretation of B19.2 example, which shows that any LOS from gully to gully is blocked by non-gully background coloration. Whereas A6.3 seems to indicate only the vertexes matter, in which case there would be LOS. I think I've played it both ways.

But it does seem the tip from the trenches needs to be incorporated into the rules somehow. I would say the A6.3 exception is poorly written (or more likely written by someone else than the person who wrote B19.2).

 

[jrv]

In my mind we can.

JR