Are you sure that all mentions of ADJACENT imply "or in the same Location" and of adjacent imply "or in the same hex"?
I am ready to adapt to that idea if it proves right, but there would need some checking of the full corpus of the rules to see if that idea holds water in all cases.
Equating two Locations to one can possibly generate strange applications of the rules.
One problem is the
definitions of adjacent/ADJACENT, which - unless one is a mathematician specialized in geometry concepts - seem to say that an element is not adjacent to itself.
Should one rewrite the definitions of ADJACENT and adjacent, as they are too restrictive and thus wrong?
ADJACENT
Original wording : "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"
Modified : "Locations
or a Location [and units in them] are
or is considered ADJACENT if any Infantry unit in one Location could conceivably—ignoring any enemy presence—advance
(or not advance if in the same Location) into the other during the APh and a LOS exists between the two Locations
or the single ADJACENT to itself Location."
adjacent
Original wording: "hexes are considered adjacent if they share a common hexside"
Modified: "hexes
or a hex are
or is considered adjacent if they share
or it has a common hexside"
Strange questions could be developed, if a hex is adjacent to itself.
For an example, a unit could move to its own hex (not changing levels or Locations within it), spending the appropriate MF/MP.
Which could be nice to avoid the problem of having to spend delay MP while stopped (a vehicle could be declared to move on and on to the "adjacent" hex which it is in).
I am far from being a rules expert - that is common knowledge !
I am simply trying to understand them and I am discovering new aspects constantly.
Sorry if that rings as "making fuss".
In my case, it is about making sense.
Smarter people see no problem.
I still need better means to grasp the notions evoked.