Dry Streams and PTO: Gully first or do you 'connect' them

[Will Fleming]

Question is in PTO, adjacent streams "generally" connect to each other at the board edge. (G.1) However, when the stream is dry, they are treated as gullies.

So, do they 'connect' first or are the 'converted to gullies" first?

Scenario this comes up in is FrF72.


B20.41 DRY: If a stream is dry, it does not exist; rather, it is considered a gully for all purposes, and all marsh hexes on the same board are considered mudflats.


G.1 (last bullet) Stream "end-hexes" (whether overlay hexes or not) that are adjacent to each other but on different boards are assumed to represent a continuous stream; i.e., each hexside common to two such hexes is treated as a stream hexside [EXC: for LOS/LOF purposes, that hexside is considered a stream hexside only if the LOS/LOF begins in/IN one of those two stream hexes and ends in/IN the other].

 

[jrv]

See also A2.76. It doesn't give an answer, but it makes the question applicable to all theaters, not just PTO.

JR

 

[Treadhead]

I'm assuming, based on the question and the scenario (which I don't have) that an SSR makes the Stream dry.

Well, then B20.41 prevails, and it is a gully.

Being a gully, there is no provision for the ends connecting in the same manner as Streams.

The sequence to me, then, is:

a. Stream becomes Gully (SSR and B20.41)
b. Gullies don't connect

Maybe that's not what the scenario intended, but I could not find any other rule to pertain.

 

[Treadhead]

It seems reasonable to suppose that the gullies *should* connect; because of how the rulebook is worded, the onus would be on the designer to make it clear, IMO.

 

[von Marwitz]

I agree both with that as the RAW Gullies do not connect and that it seems reasonable to suppose the *should* connect.

Classic case of pointing the problem out to the opponent (or TD) and to find a mutual agreement (or ruling) how the situation is to be handled.

von Marwitz

 

[bendizoid]

Oh God, I hope you know who doesn't see this thread.

 

[Vinnie]

I think they do connect since they are still stream hexes though treated as a gully for all purposes. They are dry stream hexes.

 

[jrv]

I don't see any good reason to be strongly in favor of one or the other. I would take treating such a depression as a gully for all purposes as making G.1 and A2.76 not applicable, but not so much that I couldn't see the other way. If you and an opponent disagree, I would suggest rolling a die. I think it would need a Q&A to be resolved.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

I'm assuming, based on the question and the scenario (which I don't have) that an SSR makes the Stream dry.

Well, then B20.41 prevails, and it is a gully.

Being a gully, there is no provision for the ends connecting in the same manner as Streams.

The sequence to me, then, is:

a. Stream becomes Gully (SSR and B20.41)
b. Gullies don't connect

Maybe that's not what the scenario intended, but I could not find any other rule to pertain.

Not a rule, but your logic seems to be flawed to me.
1. It's a stream (thus connected).
2. The stream is dry - thus becoming (somewhat) of a gully.
3. Therefore, gully (ergo dry stream) connects.

JMHO though.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Not a rule, but your logic seems to be flawed to me.
1. It's a stream (thus connected).
2. The stream is dry - thus becoming (somewhat) of a gully.
3. Therefore, gully (ergo dry stream) connects.

JMHO though.

This is also, flawed.
The dry Stream is considered as a gully and no Stream rules apply, unless otherwise stated.
Gullies don't connect.
You cannot import now in the Gullies rules previous Stream rules.
It seems that the designer should have given a SSR precision here.

 

[Will Fleming]

Similar question: Do marsh become mudflats (by the rules when streams are dry) before becoming 'swamp' as per the PTO rules or do the marshes next to the jungle/etc become swamp *first* and then the remaining marsh become mudflats?

Not really going to impact play as the game has gone, but for future reference it would be good if MMP sorted out a kind of ASLOP for terrain changes.

 

[mgmasl]

Not a rule, but your logic seems to be flawed to me.
1. It's a stream (thus connected).
2. The stream is dry - thus becoming (somewhat) of a gully.
3. Therefore, gully (ergo dry stream) connects.

JMHO though.

+1.. When comparing woods-gully hexes with woods-stream hexes when stream is dry, i think is clear the stream is not covered by woods even being considered as a gully for movement, TEM,... purposes.. Ie I think a stream is always a stream, and stream rules always apply even If dry.. When dry, because no water, it's considered as a gully per rules purposes refering to movement, fire, .. but even so it's a dry stream and not a gully.

 

[Mr Incredible]

Here's my reasoning.

It connects.

Just because.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Here's my reasoning.

It connects.

Just because.

Your reasoning actually is the one which makes the most sense, Sir.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

...but for future reference it would be good if MMP sorted out a kind of ASLOP for terrain changes.

Send them a Q&A.

My take would probably be:
Dry streams connect and swamp remains swamp.

What I find a bit curious is why rules A2.76 and G.1 did not include gullies in the first place.

 

[Treadhead]

As I said, it is reasonable to suppose that attaching Gullies connect similarly to Streams. I would play it that way; it just can't be shown in the ASLRB.

but even so it's a dry stream and not a gully.

Well no, actually, this is not correct. B20.41 is very clear.

"If a stream is dry, it does not exist;" I don't want to be a jerk to emphasize that last part. "It does not exist." There is NO stream.

"rather, it is considered a gully for all purposes..." Again, I don't wish to be a jerk about it, but to emphasize, "a gully for all purposes."

At that point, you might as well stop reading the Stream rules, because nothing in the Stream rules apply to a Dry stream.

Look to the Gully rules. It's not "sort of" a gully, it's not "like" a gully.... it IS a gully "for all purposes."

Is this being pedantic? Probably. But IMO that's where you have to start in dealing with the ASLRB.

Yes, I agree with the reasonableness of peoples' logic. Where I veer off the path is when people read the rules and then say, "thus becoming (somewhat) of a gully," or "it's a dry stream and not a gully." Those conclusions are not supported, in fact are even directly contradicted: "a gully for all purposes."

So yes, connect the gullies, because that is reasonable. But no, the rules as written do not support it.

 

[Robin Reeve]

So yes, connect the gullies, because that is reasonable. But no, the rules as written do not support it.

Your demonstration is solid.
In such a case, bypassing the rules with use of common sense is the way to go - which hardly is the usual way to proceed in ASL.

 

[Treadhead]

Agreed. This is just a discussion.


I can't recall offhand any scenarios that feature Gullies that connect in a similar manner.

Likewise, I don't have Chapter F handy, but it seems that I remember that Wadis that connect are considered continuous. I wonder if there is some mention of Gullies there.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Likewise, I don't have Chapter F handy, but it seems that I remember that Wadis that connect are considered continuous. I wonder if there is some mention of Gullies there.

Yes, wadis connect the same way. Rule A2.76 (new in 2nd edition, IIRC) handle that. I don't actually see anything about it in rules section F5 though.

 

[Treadhead]

D'oh! Of course!....