rreinesch
Elder Member
After you overcome the pangs of sorrow for the 4-6-8 answer this:
Can the Russians encircle the 4-6-8?
Can the Russians encircle the 4-6-8?
See the example at the end of 7.7. The 4th example is Encircled via case c, but one of the three attacks is via the hexspine. I understand that this is because LOS along a hexspine is also through BOTH of the hexsides.I disagree. The unit in the illustration does not meet the requirements of Case A, B, or C for Encirclement.
Case C is three non-contiguous hex sides. There is no case C encirclement with one or more of the shots coming down the hex spine.
I agree about the example, but am not sure about the reason. Explaining it with LOS along a hexspine being part of both hexsides is not good enough, because it would still not fulfill C, due to the other two attacks coming from two contiguous hexsides, not two non-contigious as required.See the example at the end of 7.7. The 4th example is Encircled via case c, but one of the three attacks is via the hexspine. I understand that this is because LOS along a hexspine is also through BOTH of the hexsides.
Because by that interpretation, you cover hexsides 1, (top), 4, 6 and that is still not three non-contiguous hexsides.However, I can't see why the second "Not Encircled" example would not be encircled by that interpretation.
That makes good sense. To me, this looks like a good candidate for an errata, since the text doesn't match the examples.Case C should probably read something like: "The location does not have any two contiguous hexsides free of firers' LOS". In fact, this would cover case A as well, leaving just case B needed.
The emaphsis on hexspines and hexsides as it relates to cases a) and b) of A7.7 deals specifically with how encirclement can be achieved from 2 fires. In case a) fires directly down opposite hexspines, which can only be possible from 2 fires and case b) which deals with how 2 fires that cross a hexside can cause encirclement, namely that there must exist exactly three vertices in both a clockwise and counterclockwise direction from each of the 2 fires. In the two conditions cited as not being encircled, this is the case that it specficially fails on. Case c) empahsizes hexsides as it deals with how to determine if encirclement occurs from 3 or more fires which enter the hex - again through any three non-contigous hexsides. Since a vertex is a part of a hexside by definition in the Index, then any fire that goes through a vertex is by definition eligible to be considered as going to either of the hexsides which encompass it for this determination.See the example at the end of 7.7. The 4th example is Encircled via case c, but one of the three attacks is via the hexspine. I understand that this is because LOS along a hexspine is also through BOTH of the hexsides.
However, I can't see why the second "Not Encircled" example would not be encircled by that interpretation.
"..three non-contiguos hexsides..." IMO, the non-contiguos is applied to the 3 hexsides,.. Looking at the second diagram for c) case in the EX at 7.7 is clear because there are two contiguos and another one non-connected to any of this two contiguos hexsides.. Looking at this same EX it looks clear that the vertice is included in the hexside in this case...Yes, it does need to be cleaned up. I noticed it the last time I played. My opponent came up with a reading of the rule that actually explained the second "C" example under the wording, but I can not recall it right now. Nonetheless, we both agreed that it needed to be cleaned up.
EDIT: Ah, now (I think) I remember the explanation. It is that not all three attacks have to be from noncontiguous hexsides, just that one of the attacks must be noncontiguous to the other two.
EDIT: Ah, now (I think) I remember the explanation. It is that not all three attacks have to be from noncontiguous hexsides, just that one of the attacks must be noncontiguous to the other two.
Well, I'm questioning it right now. "non-contiguous" means roughly "non-adjacent". Some of the examples labeled "encircled" have two of the three shots coming through adjacent hexsides.Encirclement is absolutely possible.
"3 non-contiguous" means 3 hexsides that are not all connected. 2 can be connected, but not all 3. Use the worse possible interpretation for the attacker when the shot comes down the hexspine.
Never seen anyone question that interpretation.
I think the question is whether it is "all 3," to be fair (though as I mentioned above, I agree with your interpretation, I just do not think it is written as clearly as it should be).I'm not adverse to RB clarification if someone wants to lobby for that, but I don't think its necessary to arrive at the correct interpretation here... and that is the one put forth by Bret and others.
Encirclement is absolutely possible.
"3 non-contiguous" means 3 hexsides that are not all connected. 2 can be connected, but not all 3. Use the worse possible interpretation for the attacker when the shot comes down the hexspine.
Never seen anyone question that interpretation.
JT