Is a hex adjacent to itself?

djohannsen

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
613
Reaction score
434
Location
Within 800 meters.
Country
llUnited States
While contemplating setup SSR for a scenario, I started thinking about adjacency in ASL (I know, it's never a good thing when I try to think). In particular, I was wondering if a location is ADJACENT to itself, and whether a hex is adjacent to itself. The first question was answered in a Perry Sez:

A.8
Is a Location ADJACENT to itself? I.e., if a rule permits some activity in an ADJACENT Location, and does not “specifically exclude” the unit’s current Location from that activity, is the current Location included by default?
A. Yes. Yes.

Now, it seems to me that it ought also to be that a hex is adjacent to itself. That is, adjacent is defined in A.8 as follows: "Hexes (and units inside them) are `adjacent' if they share a common hexside." It seems to me that a hex does indeed share a hexside with itself (six hexsides, in fact). Self-adjacency would be precluded if the definition were worded as "share exactly one hexside" or "share one, and only one, hexside." What is the collective thought on this?

Though it might seem to be simply pedantry, when scenario SSR dictates that one thing must setup adjacent to another, it can make a big difference (i.e., whether these things may setup in separate locations in the same hex). So, I would like to hear any thoughts on whether a hex is adjacent to itself. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
19,498
Reaction score
4,008
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I think the ADJACENT q&a was trying to avoid having to append "or in the same Location" to lots of rules in the ASLRB, for instance when a broken unit becomes DM due to an ADJACENT KEU [A10.62]. As to whether this should be applied to "adjacent" in a hypothetical setup instruction/SSR in a hypothetical scenario, I would hope that the scenario author would make it plain whether "adjacent" also means "the same hex" or not.

JR
 

Magpie

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
122
Reaction score
40
Country
llAustralia
Adjacency is a relationship between two hexes or locations so by that very definition a hex can't be adjacent to itself as it is only a single
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,241
Reaction score
382
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
Q&A
Perry Sez collected from ASLML:

A 08: Is a Location ADJACENT to itself? I.e., if a rule permits some activity in an ADJACENT Location, and does not “specifically exclude” the unit’s current Location from that activity, is the current Location included by default?

A: Yes. Yes

of course I know it is not official, the ASL RB is the ASL RB and the Q&A are Q&A and bla bla ...
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
19,498
Reaction score
4,008
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Q&A
Perry Sez collected from ASLML:

A 08: Is a Location ADJACENT to itself? I.e., if a rule permits some activity in an ADJACENT Location, and does not “specifically exclude” the unit’s current Location from that activity, is the current Location included by default?

A: Yes. Yes

of course I know it is not official, the ASL RB is the ASL RB and the Q&A are Q&A and bla bla ...
That is caps ADJACENT. Small adjacent is not necessarily the same.

JR
 

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,143
Reaction score
1,728
Location
St-Légier
Country
llSwitzerland
"adjacent" requires two hexes: note the plural in the definition:
A.8 ADJACENT: Hexes (and the units inside them) are "adjacent" if they share a common hexside.
 

Philippe D.

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
467
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Well, a hex and itself share at least a common hexside. In fact, most of the time they share six; half-hexes share fewer than that.

I don't have a problem with the default plural being applied to a hex and itself. I'd say a hex is adjacent to itself; if the rule said "one hexside", I'd say the reverse (I'd interpret "a hexside" as "at least one", and "one hexside" as "exactly one).

But then, what are examples of situations where it actually matters?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
19,498
Reaction score
4,008
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
But then, what are examples of situations where it actually matters?
An example for ADJACENT is that a known enemy unit that is ADJACENT puts a DM on a friendly broken unit. I can't think of any place where it matters for lower case adjacent, but it's not inconceivable that there are some. The original post suggested a hypothetical SSR in a hypothetical scenario; for that case I would suggest that the scenario author make clear what he wants rather than depend on using "adjacent" as a clearly-defined term.

JR
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
4,547
Reaction score
1,189
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
An example for ADJACENT is that a known enemy unit that is ADJACENT puts a DM on a friendly broken unit. I can't think of any place where it matters for lower case adjacent, but it's not inconceivable that there are some. The original post suggested a hypothetical SSR in a hypothetical scenario; for that case I would suggest that the scenario author make clear what he wants rather than depend on using "adjacent" as a clearly-defined term.

JR
I had this same chat with Hildebran here on GS a few years back (I suck at GS searches so have not bothered to trace it) and he proved to me a hex is ADJ to itself sufficiently to me in his argument. It may have been the shared hex side, it may have been something else. I don't recall. I was in the two hex camp, but he made the case well enough. His case my have been based off internal rules situations which prove this.

Maybe its a q and a? And Robin (tag) your are it for submitting, b/c you get answers waayyyyy faster than when I submit same.
 

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,143
Reaction score
1,728
Location
St-Légier
Country
llSwitzerland
I don't have a problem with the default plural being applied to a hex and itself.
I do have a problem, because the plural means two hexes, not one.
You can play with words, but a hex does not "share" its hexsides with itself: it has those hexsides and needs no other entity to share them with it.
The rule doesn't seem to hint that a hex is adjacent to itself, which does meet logics and the etymology of the term: the latin adjacere means to be placed next to, as it links ad towards and jacere to lie down, to be thrown.
As much as the ASL rules don't always obey normal logics I think that one must consider that, unless otherwise specified, they do apply the normal meaning and usage of English.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
19,498
Reaction score
4,008
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I had this same chat with Hildebran here on GS a few years back (I suck at GS searches so have not bothered to trace it) and he proved to me a hex is ADJ to itself sufficiently to me in his argument. It may have been the shared hex side, it may have been something else. I don't recall. I was in the two hex camp, but he made the case well enough. His case my have been based off internal rules situations which prove this.

Maybe its a q and a? And Robin (tag) your are it for submitting, b/c you get answers waayyyyy faster than when I submit same.
There is a q&a for ADJACENT. It's been quoted here at least twice. There isn't a similar one for adjacent, but as far as I know there isn't a need for one.

JR
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
4,547
Reaction score
1,189
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
There is a q&a for ADJACENT. It's been quoted here at least twice. There isn't a similar one for adjacent, but as far as I know there isn't a need for one.

JR
Fair enough. But it could seem to help for some.
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,034
Reaction score
711
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Country
llAustralia
Though it might seem to be simply pedantry, when scenario SSR dictates that one thing must setup adjacent to another, it can make a big difference (i.e., whether these things may setup in separate locations in the same hex). So, I would like to hear any thoughts on whether a hex is adjacent to itself.
Firstly, when discussing ADJACENT, never ever talk about "hexes". You are always talking about "Locations". DO NOT CONFUSE THESE TWO TERMS.

As JR has alluded to above, there are many examples where it is important in actual game play as to whether units in the same Location are "ADJACENT". [FWIW, the actual game situation that inspired the original question (I submitted it) was a unit wanting to place a Daisy-Chain into its own Location (B28.531).]

I can only think of examples in a negative sense where it might be important whether units in the same Location are "adjacent". I.E., if B28.531 used "adjacent" instead of "ADJACENT" then I would argue that the Daisy Chain could not be placed in the same Location, because logically to be "adjacent" inherently implies a comparison of two separate places (in addition to the specific wording used in the Index). It's more economical to say "ADJACENT" instead of "in the same Location or adjacent to another Location".

To put it another way, the definition of "ADJACENT" does not require two different Locations because it's actually talking about a single Location: if I am ADJACENT to a specified Location then I can do various things relevant to that Location. The definition of "adjacent" does require two different Locations because a direct comparison of those two Locations is inherent to the question. Two units in the same Location are ADJACENT but they are not adjacent.
 
Last edited:

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,143
Reaction score
1,728
Location
St-Légier
Country
llSwitzerland
The ADJACENT index definition implies two different Locations.

(Locations [and units in them] are considered ADJACENT if any Infantry unit in one Location could conceivably—ignoring any enemy presence—advance into the other during the APh and a LOS exists between the two Locations, excluding SMOKE Hindrance [B.1] and NVR [E1.101] as factors):
Is a Location another to itself and is it two Locations to itself?
In a psychiatric unit quite certainly. 🤪
In ASL presumably not...
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
309
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
I think Robin has this right. By A.8 and the Index, it is pretty clear that both adjacent and ADJACENT units are not in the same “place” (for lack of a better collective term). Both terms are comparative and require two “places” to even be grammatically relevant.

As for the above-cited Q&A (regarding ADJACENT-cy), JR is probably correct that it is hedging on requiring "...or in the same hex" everywhere, but it seems an iffy conclusion.

Regardless, I really doubt the Q&A had SSRs like the OP's in mind. Too bad, since it's only in such SSRs that I can see this becoming a big problem.

So in conclusion, just believe Robin - he's pretty smart. ;)
 
Top