Has the discussion of the bridge TEM changed your mind?

[Portal]

'Ol Fezziwig,

So now part of your argument is disputing the inherent value of ROAR?

I disagree; the abstracted presentation of the reduction of the effective size of a hex due to a bridge is well served by the TEM. The reduction of the target area is uncontested, is it not? That is close enough to 'tangible' for me.

Using this logic, sunken roads, gullies, and all buildings should have their inherent TEMs all reduced by 1. The target area where is the squad is located is reduced significantly in each circumstance. If "reduction of target area" is a justifiable reality argument in support of -1 TEM, then there are a number of terrain types which all require mid-edition rule changes.

Larry,

One fundamental difference is that this rule change had a basis in existing rules structure whereas change to the PM did not.

What is this "basis" in existing rules structure? The only inherent support for the -1 TEM was its confusing appearance on the Terrain Chart. There was no rule precedence for -1 TEM applicability to Residual Fire (neither chart nor RB). The text of both ASLRB1 and 2 made no mention of any additional -1 TEM. And then there is that "0 TEM" written on the pontoon counters...

And let us not forget the rules changes from v.1 to v.2. Some of those had dramatic impact on game play in the majority of scenarios, not just a few.

I have no qualms with major rule changes occuring between editions of a game. That's one of the core reasons for a game company to release a new edition. My rules governance beef is the acceptability of mid-edition rules change and laissez-faire attitude of releasing unnecessary errata stickies to clutter up an already complex RB.

But even still, this governance beef is a side issue to the core reasons why this -1 TEM is unjustifiable.

A designer need only say that the TEM on a bridge through the road is "0" and that will be that.

Why is this onus of responsibility being placed on the scenario designer? Why is it inappropriate to expect the rule change to justify this burden it places on existing work?

So adjust your tactics; it really is not that complex.

Why should I have to "adjust my tactics" when my gameplay experience has seen no improvement via this change? Why does the onus fall on the player?

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

So now part of your argument is disputing the inherent value of ROAR?

No, part of my very being is disputing the inherent value of ROAR as I've demonstrated in the past. :devious: The use of ROAR to bolster claims of 'balance' are spurious at best because the starkness of win versus loss does not tell the entire story. Add in the fact that all too many reactionaries want to label a scenario as unbalanced due to a ROAR record without due consideration of the intricasies of a particular scenario (think: Ultimate Treachery, Priests on the Line and Makin Taken), I tend to hold the W/L function of ROAR with some suspicion.
If you're going to try to pigeon hole me, you'll have to try harder than that...:smoke:

Using this logic, sunken roads, gullies, and all buildings should have their inherent TEMs all reduced by 1. The target area where is the squad is located is reduced significantly in each circumstance. If "reduction of target area" is a justifiable reality argument in support of -1 TEM, then there are a number of terrain types which all require mid-edition rule changes.

On the face of it, this would appear to have merit, but with some minor exceptions, you cannot compare an obstacle crossing road with these terrain types on a parallel basis.
Sunken Roads would appear to be the closest relation to bridges in terms of constriction, yet they have accessible Locations (as do gullies) that bridges do not. To wit: you get on a bridge, there is no question, none whatsoever where you're going to attempt to exit it. A bridge is much more narrowly defined within a hex than these other features-and offer no alternative to disperse into within the greater portion of the hex if fired upon. Gullies, sunken roads...these are not typically, straight featureless pieces of terrain; there are folds and undulations present in them you simply will not find in a human-built feature which is also but a fraction of the hex. You cannot simply wave off this aspect of a bridge viz other terrain features, you cannot continue to ignore the plain and simple fact that a bridge is a much smaller portion of the overall hex than these other features and that if fired on down the exit plane of the bridge, that smaller glimpse into hell, that that fire is going to be much more intense within a far smaller portion of the hex than any of these other features you mention.

 

[Tater]

Sunken Roads would appear to be the closest relation to bridges in terms of constriction, yet they have accessible Locations (as do gullies) that bridges do not.

Not for vehicles...

"B4.42 Vehicles may not enter or leave a Sunken Road hex except across a road hexside."

So, to use your own justification all vehicles should recieve a -1 TEM while in a sunken road to remain consistent with bridges.

 

[Larry]

What is this "basis" in existing rules structure? The only inherent support for the -1 TEM was its confusing appearance on the Terrain Chart. There was no rule precedence for -1 TEM applicability to Residual Fire (neither chart nor RB). The text of both ASLRB1 and 2 made no mention of any additional -1 TEM. And then there is that "0 TEM" written on the pontoon counters...

When you ask the rhetorical "what is the 'basis'" and then point to the "only inerent support," you have answered the question. That is the basis, remember my adjective, "some."

Mid-edition rules changes -- I really do not understand your complaint, nor do I think laissez faire is what you meant in context. Half the chapter A pages have changed or have changes on them. Why is it only this change twisted your knickers?

The bottom line is we disagree on the wisdom of depicting the danger of crossing a bridge with a -1 TEM. No amount of debate will change that. But we are finally distilling the problem to its essence. If the problem is that you think the depiction is wrong whether changed in some future v.3, by errata, by reference to a long ignored terrain chart reference or whatever else the method is, you will object. So please, be honest, and stop with the governance, mid-edition, etc. BS. That is not your beef; your beef is you don't like the rule, period.

So Perry makes a decision to depict the danger of bridges by removing the veil from the terrain chart reference. Many think he is right; many think he is wrong. I will play the rules as published whether I agree with them or not because I enjoy playing ASL. When I play casual FTF, VASL, or in a tournament, I expect my opponent to play by the rules as published and erratacized. If you want to play by a different set of rules, pick a scenario that does not have a bridge. But you always have the option of declining to impose the bridge -1 on your opponent; just don't expect reciprocity.

 

[Larry]

Not for vehicles...

"B4.42 Vehicles may not enter or leave a Sunken Road hex except across a road hexside."

So, to use your own justification all vehicles should recieve a -1 TEM while in a sunken road to remain consistent with bridges.

Elevated roads from same or higher LOS also deserve a -1 for the same reason. Perhaps some terrain features deserve the -1 even more so, the elevated road lacks the girders to hug.

4.43 SUNKEN LANE: A Sunken Road can be treated as a Sunken Lane if so designated by SSR. All Sunken Road rules also apply to a Sunken Lane unless specified otherwise. The rules for a Sunken Lane are the same as those for One-Lane Bridges (6.43 -.431) except that Wreck Removal (DlO.42) does not apply in a Sunken Lane.

 

[Larry]

B32.43: Normal bridge rules (6. and 5.21) apply to RR bridges [EXC: only Infantry/Cavalry may enter/exit the road Location via a RR hexsideJ.15

and

15 32.43 ELEVATED RR CROSSING: Typically, the area around an Elevated Railroad Bridge is more built up, with much less room for maneuver, than a similar area involving a road that crosses a stream or gully on a bridge. A vehicle would have a much tougher time moving from up on an elevated railroad to under the bridge (and vice versa) than it would moving from on a road into the gully (or stream) under the bridge (and vice versa).

Another interesting twist in the rules.

 

[Portal]

'Ol Fezziwig,

The accessibility of Locations from a hex is a "bait and switch" argument. It has nothing directly to do with reduction of area occupied by a unit in the hex.

A bridge is much more narrowly defined within a hex than these other features-and offer no alternative to disperse into within the greater portion of the hex if fired upon.

Sure there are options. Portions of the squad etc. could choose not to enter the bridge and scatter around the embankment leading to the bridge. Surely that portion of the MMC should not be affected by -1 TEM, if we're using this reality argument correctly.

Gullies, sunken roads...these are not typically, straight featureless pieces of terrain; there are folds and undulations present in them you simply will not find in a human-built feature which is also but a fraction of the hex.

There are beams, girders, rails, etc. on bridges. Why do we choose to ignore the valuable cover offered by these, yet we consider arbitrary folds and undulations in gullies and sunken roads (which may or may not exist particularly with the latter terrain type)?

a bridge is a much smaller portion of the overall hex than these other features

This is unproven compared with gullies and sunken roads. Both of these can be equally narrower than bridges. A gully or sunken road can be 10 m wide or less.

Larry,

Again the direct Qs I pose to you go unanswered. But here my response is again:

If the only rule basis for the -1 TEM is the single cryptic reference on the Terrain Chart, I wouldn't call this "some". I'd call it "little", considering the numerous other references in the rules and counters which directly suggest it wasn't intended to exist.

Why is it only this change twisted your knickers?

Because of the reasons I've outlined in numerous posts in several threads. They include lack of support in the RB, the bridge counters, the clarity of J1 Q&A rule interpretation, and even the rules governance stuff. The rule was clear previously, and wasn't broken.

If the problem is that you think the depiction is wrong whether changed in some future v.3, by errata, by reference to a long ignored terrain chart reference or whatever else the method is, you will object.

Next time, please ask before trying to place words in my mouth. The fact is: no, I wouldn't object. A new edition is the exact appropriate time to make significant changes to the game. If bridges need to be made more dangerous in the eyes of the MMP powers that be, then that's the right time to make that decision.

When I play casual FTF, VASL, or in a tournament, I expect my opponent to play by the rules as published and erratacized.

This comment is irrelevant, unless a particular player is playing against you, personally, in either a tournament or casual game. The topic is discussion of the rule change, not your expectations of your opponents.

 

[Calimero]

If the problem is that you think the depiction is wrong whether changed in some future v.3, by errata, by reference to a long ignored terrain chart reference or whatever else the method is, you will object

The fact is: no, I wouldn't object. A new edition is the exact appropriate time to make significant changes to the game. If bridges need to be made more dangerous in the eyes of the MMP powers that be, then that's the right time to make that decision.

I would.
We will eventually all adapt to the new -1TEM, because, if the errata stands, this will be the way we play the game - so I have no choice.
What I object is the way the errata has been handled : reverting a previous ruling which concerned some of the most basic aspect of the game (TEM) on a terrain feature that appears on a very regular basis on our boards (although they do not every time represent the 'schwerpunkt' of the scenario).
I think it is a dangerous way to go to twist an unbroken rule to make it fit the 'reality' as seen by some players - even very good ones. ASL is designed for effect and bits and bites of one rule should not be changed if that rule is already giving the correct 'feel' of the situation.

Rgds,
jp

 

[Larry]

When I use the word "some," I mean the common dictionary definition. M-w.com:

Main Entry: 1some
Pronunciation: 's&m, for 2 without stress
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English som, adjective & pronoun, from Old English sum; akin to Old High German sum some, Greek hamE somehow, homos same -- more at SAME
1 : being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing <some person knocked>
2 a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a class or group) named or implied <some gems are hard> b : being of an unspecified amount or number <give me some water> <have some apples>
3 : REMARKABLE, STRIKING <that was some party>
4 : being at least one -- used to indicate that a logical proposition is asserted only of a subclass or certain members of the class denoted by the term which it modifies

Allow me to be more clear:

What is this "basis" in existing rules structure?

The terrain chart provides "some" basis for the revision of the rule. Again, "some" is more than none, but less than all.

Next time, please ask before trying to place words in my mouth. The fact is: no, I wouldn't object. A new edition is the exact appropriate time to make significant changes to the game. If bridges need to be made more dangerous in the eyes of the MMP powers that be, then that's the right time to make that decision.

Where then are your objections to the other "changes" imposed by errata? If this is not your only objection, what other objections do you have? I roughly count 89 separate and distinct errata, some minor, some significant. That does not count the changes made in the AOO released pages. Do these pages count as a new edition or do you object to the lifing of the teleport clause from ASL without the advent of a third edition.

Would I like replacement pages instead of sticky errata? Of course. Would I like the rules to reflect my view of how the game should flow? Maybe, maybe not. Did I think the bridge TEM was broken? No. Do I think the game plays better with a 0 TEM or a -1 TEM? Ever so slightly the -1.

So here is what we should do to satisfy your concerns. I suggest that we scratch together a couple hundred K and pay for the 3rd edition of the ASLRB and give it to MMP for distribution.

 

[Portal]

Larry,

It would be nice if you decided to answer some of my earlier Qs regarding onus of responsibility for change rather than chasing down dictionary definitions over much less significant points.

Among the other numerous other errata, the majority clear up ambiguities in the game which had not received previous rulings. No problem with that. Some of them are rule changes for the purpose of fixing the broken (e.g. Platoon Movement). Others were outright changes that, while philosophically I don't agree with changing mid-edition, are calls that I can tolerate as their occurrence within the game is much less frequent and significant than bridge TEM.

I suggest that we scratch together a couple hundred K and pay for the 3rd edition of the ASLRB and give it to MMP for distribution.

Looks like we are moving closer to agreement on something: I do think the game is very close to needing a 3rd edition, considering all the stickies and replacement pages which have been released for ASLRB2.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Not for vehicles...

"B4.42 Vehicles may not enter or leave a Sunken Road hex except across a road hexside."

Of course; I didn't mention vehicles due to the obvious (I thought) reference to infantry. I've mentioned before vehicles and the TEM (thus the TH penalty) may be incongruent.

So, to use your own justification all vehicles should recieve a -1 TEM while in a sunken road to remain consistent with bridges.

Interestingly, they do. If fired on by indirect fire they receive a -1 TEM if not in crest status, according to the Chapter B divider. Coincidentally, this little bit of information also is non-existent in the text of the Sunken Road rules...what do the doom-sayers have to say about this little bit of corroboration with the bridge TEM?????*

As for Sunken Lanes, given the wording of the rules, in particular the "...treated as one-lane bridges..." I'd also agree the -1 would be in effect here as well. The tactical issues of these terrain features extend to combat as well as movement, another little gleam of realism peaking through the curtain...

* The evidence is increasing that the chart contains definate direction and information not contained in the text of the rules a la the concelament chart...

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Beating that horse some more!

'Ol Fezziwig,

The accessibility of Locations from a hex is a "bait and switch" argument. It has nothing directly to do with reduction of area occupied by a unit in the hex.

I don't think "bait and switch" is accurate as it implies a level of dishonesty on my part, which simply is not existant. What I'm saying is a bridge Location is the only Location at that level in the hex. It is a means of egress across some sort of obstacle. You enter the bridge-of whatever size- at one distinct, smaller point of the hex and your only option of exiting it is traversing down the length of said bridge to the opposite distinct, small point at the other end. There is no subterfuge available to deceive an opponent on your intended destination nor any way to spread his fire along a 40m front as would be possible in most other terrain features. Let's face it, a bridge Location in most circumstances is smaller in area than most other terrain features.

A bridge is much more narrowly defined within a hex than these other features-and offer no alternative to disperse into within the greater portion of the hex if fired upon

.

Sure there are options. Portions of the squad etc. could choose not to enter the bridge and scatter around the embankment leading to the bridge. Surely that portion of the MMC should not be affected by -1 TEM, if we're using this reality argument correctly.

Not if the intent is to cross the bridge; this TEM makes loitering around a bridge a mite more hazardous than open ground. defending the bridge is best done away from the bridge itself, not on it. As for

Portions of the squad etc. could choose not to enter the bridge and scatter around the embankment leading to the bridge

this is easily viewed as defending the bridge from one of the entry/exit hexes, no?

There are beams, girders, rails, etc. on bridges. Why do we choose to ignore the valuable cover offered by these, yet we consider arbitrary folds and undulations in gullies and sunken roads (which may or may not exist particularly with the latter terrain type)?

Not on all bridges is this true. The cover afforded by the side wall structures of bridges is not ignored, as you well know. If the LOS does not exactly follow the road depiction, the TEM is +1. Fire sweeping down the street portion of a bridge should be inherently more dangerous, shouldn't it?

a bridge is a much smaller portion of the overall hex than these other features

This is unproven compared with gullies and sunken roads. Both of these can be equally narrower than bridges. A gully or sunken road can be 10 m wide or less.

No, it isn't. Bridges can be as slight as a single log fallen across the Matanikau; so can gullies and sunken roads. Yet, few gullies are straight line features (hence the LOS restrictions for them). The RB allows for definitions of, and treatment of smaller (and larger) versions of these features (obviously EXC gullies). Yet, the RB also provides similiar penalties for smaller depressions on the Chapter B divider that are not spelled out textually in said RB.

 

[Larry]

It would be nice if you decided to answer some of my earlier Qs regarding onus of responsibility for change.

The entity with the obligation or burden of managing and tuning the ASLRB is Perry Cocke in particular and MMP in general. I want to avoid putting words in your fingers here so I will refrain from assuming that you want a dissertation about who has the burden of proving the necessity of a particular change, to the extent that I have not already answered that question, i.e. Perry and MMP.

As an aside, it is particularly difficult in the context of a forum to decipher that which is rhetorical from that which is a probing question. I frequently assume that if I have difficulty repeatedly with a particular form of communication it is not my multiple members of the audience that are having the difficulty, it is my manner of communication. No one is trying to be evasive; we all have our list of points to make; answering your questions buried inside of a diatribe is difficult.

 

[Portal]

'Ol Fezziwig,

There is no subterfuge available to deceive an opponent on your intended destination nor any way to spread his fire along a 40m front as would be possible in most other terrain features.

The 40 m front wouldn't apply to most single-level, single-hex buildings, for example. Or Elevated Roads, Sunken Roads, Narrow streets, gullies, etc. If that's an argument for -1 TEM, again, these terrain types need to be examined also.

The "intended destination" point is a red herring, as far as I can see. Just because ultimate destination options are restricted doesn't automatically make a particular piece of terrain more lethal enough to justify a -1 TEM.

Not if the intent is to cross the bridge; this TEM makes loitering around a bridge a mite more hazardous than open ground.

this is easily viewed as defending the bridge from one of the entry/exit hexes, no?

When moving a counter into a bridge hex, there is no clear, automatic intent for crossing. It could be that the unit simply wishes to occupy the hex to prevent the other side from entering. Assumptions about movement intent cannot be made.

If the LOS does not exactly follow the road depiction, the TEM is +1.

It seems you aren't fully recognizing the rule change. The -1 TEM also applies to Residual Fire (i.e. the primary area of my beef with the erratum) which does not require fire from original sources with any LOS near the road depiction at all.

Yet, the RB also provides similiar penalties for smaller depressions on the Chapter B divider that are not spelled out textually in said RB.

Considering there's no explicit reference in Chapter B to refer to the Terrain Chart for TEM information (unlike in the concealment rules for the Concealment Chart), how do we know these are not in error too? After all, there are no printed counters which provide a third source of information..... :smoke:

 

[Larry]

Looking around the ASLRB, found another example that implicitly supports the errata.

G13.7: All rules for non-pontoon bridges apply to piers except as stated otherwise.

and

13.72 TEM: A pier Location is Open Ground with a 0 TEM.

If the pier had the same TEM as a bridge, there would be no need to state it again. This is an "except as stated otherwise."

D7.15: However, an OVR vs Infantry/Cavalry in any Open Ground hex may apply the FFMO -1 DRM, cumulative with applicable TEM (e.g., entrenchment, Emplacement, shellhole, vehicle/wreck, bridge, wall, bocage, etc.)

If the bridge were just OG, there could be no need for its TEM (-1) to be cumulative with the -1 FFMO DRM.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Damn horse!!

The 40 m front wouldn't apply to most single-level, single-hex buildings, for example. Or Elevated Roads, Sunken Roads, Narrow streets, gullies, etc. If that's an argument for -1 TEM, again, these terrain types need to be examined also.

I'm not going to address roads of various elevation/width or gullies; we've covered that ground well enough already. Buildings? The ability to provide concealment as well as cover is reason enough for the TEM of buildings despite the often smaller area of them in rural settings. I really don't think a re-evaluation is needed for them, it's rather a stretch, don't you think?

The "intended destination" point is a red herring, as far as I can see. Just because ultimate destination options are restricted doesn't automatically make a particular piece of terrain more lethal enough to justify a -1 TEM.

:hmmm:
It's not as if I asked you to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest...:laugh:
I refuse to believe you cannot see the obviousness of what I'm trying to say...

When moving a counter into a bridge hex, there is no clear, automatic intent for crossing. It could be that the unit simply wishes to occupy the hex to prevent the other side from entering. Assumptions about movement intent cannot be made.

Assumptions aside, if an opponent wants to 'occupy' the bridge with a free
-1, more power to him! Given the design philosophy of ASL and what a bridge Location represents, functionally and effectually, I have no problem with this.

It seems you aren't fully recognizing the rule change. The -1 TEM also applies to Residual Fire (i.e. the primary area of my beef with the erratum) which does not require fire from original sources with any LOS near the road depiction at all.

I do recognise the odious effects of the residual fire/TEM; once more, the bridge provides a convenient, focused, narrow, small, precis' target of fire, much more than an entire hex.

Considering there's no explicit reference in Chapter B to refer to the Terrain Chart for TEM information (unlike in the concealment rules for the Concealment Chart), how do we know these are not in error too? After all, there are no printed counters which provide a third source of information.....

Wow.

Now there's evidence of someone who's dug in his heels and refuses to consider valid counterpoints to his position. Look, while what you claim may have possibility of truth to it, the stark fact remains that there are many little nuggets on the chart which, taken in toto (you nasty little dog!), clearly show there is information on the chart not repeated in the text. These nuggets are tending to support, rather than refute, the original thesis of the bridge TEM. The explicit references to FFMO in other terrain lines (but not in the bridge line), the -1 TEM in sunken roads to indirect fire...I mean, really, a sunken road TEM counter?

Pitdog ain't the only stubborn, intransigent b*stard around, you know, I have my moments...:clown:

 

[Portal]

Well, gentlemen, it's been a good run, but I'm done hacking away at entirely interpretive reality arguments. At least Larry and I have come to agreement that the need for ASLRB3 is becoming greater as the days and months go by.

I do recognise the odious effects of the residual fire/TEM; once more, the bridge provides a convenient, focused, narrow, small, precis' target of fire, much more than an entire hex.

The cover of girders, railings, and bridge-side barriers more than compensate for this "narrow, small, precise" (not true with respect to wide, multi-lane bridges) target with respect to Residual Fire.

the stark fact remains that there are many little nuggets on the chart which, taken in toto (you nasty little dog!), clearly show there is information on the chart not repeated in the text. These nuggets are tending to support, rather than refute, the original thesis of the bridge TEM

There is nothing on the chart which suggests anything close to a -1 bridge TEM for Residual Fire.

BTW - I hope MMP issues an update with respect to their erratum review in time for the Grofaz tournament at ASLOK.

 

[Treadhead]

Considering there's no explicit reference in Chapter B to refer to the Terrain Chart for TEM information (unlike in the concealment rules for the Concealment Chart), how do we know these are not in error too?

Dude, you're becoming hysterical, even by my standards.

Sheesh, you wouldn't expect the reference to the B. Terrain Chart to be in Chapter B, would you?

A7.6: "The DRM applicable to each terrain type is listed on the TEM column of the Terrain Chart and in the applicable rule section."

Of course, we do know that what's listed in the TEM column of the Terrain Chart is sometimes different than what's mentioned in the applicable rule section... :smoke:

Anyway, I'm kinda impressed that you guys are still going at it. But then again, since nothing new is being said, it's like deja vu all over again.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[A/CSM Bird]

As practical example in the recent Canadian ASL Open this past week-end I played the German in The Bridge of Verdalsora J36. Luckily enough for purposes of this discussion I was forced to run down a MMG firelane for three hexes while crossing the bridge. 2FP -2DRM(-1 Bridge TEM, -1 FFNAM) the end of the bridge was shrouded in dispersed smoke from an OBA FFE which negated FFMO. My objective was to get a platoon( 3 x 4-6-8 w/LMGs + 8-0) across as unscathed as possible. I had 2 half-squads to start the run which made it across OK, passing Pin checks and MCs, my first whole squad broke in the last bridge location. The next squad finally triggered an attack DR of 11 which broke the Norwegian MMG, and the 8-0 and last 4-6-8/LMG ran across untouched.

I wanted to make the Allied player roll as much as possible to make the chance of an 11 or 12 DR appear before I had to move whole squads or my leader, ideally it would happen soon so I could move as a stack without double timing to forego that extra +1 CX DRM. After all those rolls I had 1 broken squad on the bridge and had moved 2 x 2-4-8s and 2 x 4-6-8/LMGs and an 8-0 across unscathed.

The -1 Bridge TEM played out in this situation with a very realistic feel. That feeling you get when playing ASL sometimes that you are watching a movie of an event as the situation unfolds. I for one will continue to apply the -1 TEM, it feels right, plays right and for me that's all that really matters.

 

[Portal]

Bruce,

The "other parts of the terrain chart could be in error" was a tongue-in-cheek reference to 'Ol Fezziwig's comment in the earlier thread that quite possibly 8 out of 9 ASL players playing bridges using the pre-J7 rule of 0 TEM were doing so in error.

Perhaps, after all this time, it's become a bit of an inside joke.