klasmalmstrom
Forum Guru
IMO, most evidence says it is. So I guess it is a matter of how one views the evidence.All the evidence says it isn't inherent terrain.
Drop MMP a QA perhaps?
IMO, most evidence says it is. So I guess it is a matter of how one views the evidence.All the evidence says it isn't inherent terrain.
What evidence?IMO, most evidence says it is. So I guess it is a matter of how one views the evidence.
Drop MMP a QA perhaps?
You brought evidence up in post #40, so let me know what you were referring to.What evidence?
As far as I understand it, Klas has been involved and is (generally) involved in proofreading rules for stuff published by MMP. Furthermore, what JR has pointed out does make sense.All the evidence says it isn't inherent terrain.
Let us see what ch. F6 says :B32.12 EmRR hexes are treated as Hillock (F6.) hexes for LOS, TEM, and COT purposes.
And what does B.6 say?F6.2 ... hillock hex is a type of Inherent Terrain (B.6)
So Inherent Terrain has a direct bearing on LOS : in fact, its definition is only there to define special LOS effects.It is not necessary that a LOS actually cross such a symbol to be affected—mere entrance of the hex (even if only to trace a LOS to or through a vertex of such a hex) or a LOS exactly along one of its hexsides (A6.1)suffices. A LOS traced exactly along such a hexside is considered to have passed through only one such hex—not two—even if that hexside is shared by another LOS Hindrance hex. If the Hindrance DRM of two such hexes differ, the larger of the two Hindrance DRM is used.
Ever hear of Ockham's razor?...OR
The terrain chart must be wrong
32.211 evokes the analogy of a woods road and has again no bearing on the basic rule that an EmRR is Inherent terrain.If the road were instead an EmRR or a GLRR, then a unit in K3 would be considered in Open Ground only to LOS entering across a RR depiciton (e.g., from a unit in J3).
Yes, the rule book is correct in all sections (i.e. the terrain chart is correct) would require the lest speculation.Ever hear of Ockham's razor?
P.S. ...And am I mistaken? Didn't the Hatten CG designer, himself, already confirm his intention that these EmRR indeed are treated as inherent terrain (thread post #4, above).
I believe this is a slip on the MMP chart. This was brought up by JRV in another thread. But this post is just a comment, not a statement of fact from MMP. But since B32.12 says "EmRR hexes are treated as Hillock (F6)..." and F6.2 says "...A hillock hex is a type of Inherent Terrain (B.6) ..." It stand to reason it is** inherent terrain.The Terrain chart doesn't show EmRR as being inherent terrain
But the RB has two very clear statements:Yes, the rule book is correct in all sections (i.e. the terrain chart is correct) would require the lest speculation.
Yes the Hatten CG designer did state that the EmRRR in the Hatten CG are inherent, that doesn't have any impact on the rulebook though, for the same reason the special rule in the FB CG doesn't
Wrong, "EmRR hexes are treated as Hillock (F6.) hexes for LOS" an EmRR is not treated as a Hillock. Hillock hex LOS rules are 6.4A Hillock is Inherent terrain, which is not just "what it is", but how it affects LOS - LOS is the only aspect that Inherent terrain adresses.
EmRR is treated as a Hillock for LOS purposes.
Thus it is Inherent terrain.
Correct, therefore the EmRR and ElRR must be the same type of terrain, non-inherent, for them to be lumped together without distinction.32.21 has nothing to say about an EmRR being Inherent terrain or not. It speaks of EmRR and ElRR altogether,
So you're suggesting that a unit on an EmRR in a forest can't be seen or shot at along the RR depiction?The notion of "depiction" is in relation with units firing along a road depiction as in the case of woods roads.
For an EmRR, the example is clear (and it evokes a GLRR, which underlines the fact that it only is speaking of the road analogy and not of the specific, Hillock Inherent Terrain which is shared only by an EmRR) :
They both 100% are as they stipulate that how and where you enter the hex has an impact on the COT etc, something that doesn't occur in inherent terrain.32.211 evokes the analogy of a woods road and has again no bearing on the basic rule that an EmRR is Inherent terrain.
32.23 is about movement : it has nothing to do with the terrain being Inherent or not.
As mentioned above they very fact that they are spoken about together without any distinction being made in regards of inherent terrain makes it clear none of them are inherent.Your arguments to reject the Inherent terrain nature of an EMRR try to take advantage of sections of the rules which evoke elements common to the two other RR types, which precisely are not related to Hillocks and which cannot have any bearing on the Inherent terrain side of the question.
That's so crazy it just might work. ?I sent the following question to MMP/Perry :
- Does the 32.12 statement : " EmRR hexes are treated as Hillock (F6.) hexes for LOS, TEM, and COT purposes" mean that an EmRR is Inherent terrain, like a Hillock is?
As in non HASL modules, RR are only on overlays and as the latter may be declared GLRR or EmRR, one cannot depict EmRR.While I agree with Perry's ruling (not that my opinion matters), in retrospect it would be nice if graphically all inherent terrain was more easily identified as such on the map. I know that enough use of a terrain type will burn those neurons in, but how often does one encounter some of these terrain types?