Is a hex adjacent to itself?

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Don't you ever see things like, "the two numbers are equal"?

If two numbers are equal, then by definition, there is only one of them - it's equal to itself. Yet it's a pretty standard phrase.

I really believe you are trying to read more than you should in a use of the plural.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I think that you are trying to prove that plural is singular and that adjacency can exist for a single object in relationship with itself.
Those two beliefs contradict grammar and logics.
And nothing in the ASL rules definitions indicate that usual grammar and logics should be put aside.
For an example, A7.21 speaks of PBF vs a target ADJACENT or adjacent, while TPBF is vs units "in the same Location as the attacker", with no mention of adjacency.
Following your strange logics, the rule should speak of units "ADJACENT in the same Location as the attacker".
But it doesn't, precisely because a unit in the same Location is not ADJACENT.

Note, too, that the definition of ADJACENT speaks of "the other" Location and of "two Locations". It is not just a vague plural.
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
469
Reaction score
359
Location
Borden, ON
Country
llCanada
I think that you are trying to prove that plural is singular and that adjacency can exist for a single object in relationship with itself.
Those two beliefs contradict grammar and logics.
And nothing in the ASL rules definitions indicate that usual grammar and logics should be put aside.
For an example, A7.21 speaks of PBF vs a target ADJACENT or adjacent, while TPBF is vs units "in the same Location as the attacker", with no mention of adjacency.
Following your strange logics, the rule should speak of units "ADJACENT in the same Location as the attacker".
But it doesn't, precisely because a unit in the same Location is not ADJACENT.

Note, too, that the definition of ADJACENT speaks of "the other" Location and of "two Locations". It is not just a vague plural.
I think it fairly clear that the Q&A answer may have been an economy - rules that should read "ADJACENT or same-Location" don't require a perhaps considerable amount of errata to be generated, but some niggling shortcomings in the rules are cleared up. I agree that this creates not only a bit of linguistic-logical weirdness (although we all know that ASL does generate quantum weirdness at times), but perhaps a couple of situations that now could be argued as being against the original intended effect of the rule, although I hope that noone would seriously go there during an actual game.

Sounds like another thing that could be addressed in RB v3. I certainly think the problem could be better solved by revising all the "ADJACENT or same Location" issues, but I'm sure someone would then come up with a situation in which you would need it to say "ADJACENT and/or same Location".

At any rate, we are currently dangling over the precipice of illogic by having Locations be ADJACENT to themselves, in a sort of particle/wave duality conundrum. Let's not now make it worse by claiming that they are adjacent to themselves as well - we'd probably blow a hole in the space-time continuum.
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,735
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
A.8 -- The word “ADJACENT” will be printed in all CAPITAL letters when this added restriction is necessary so as to differentiate from the more common usage with lower case letters.

ADJACENT is the more restrictive term. ADJACENT requires LOS and the ability to advance. Those restrictions are not present for units to be adjacent. Units that are ADJACENT are always adjacent. Is there a situation where that would not make sense?
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
No. But it doesn't address the question debated in this thread.

I would say that ADJACENT units may not be adjacent, for example if at different levels of a building.
ADJACENT is about Locations, adjacent is about hexes.
 

geezer

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
142
Reaction score
4
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
At first I thought it was dumb to argue that a hex could be adjacent to itself. But then I was driven beside myself by the stupidty of some of the arguments presented in this thread.

Then I realized I was both in only one location and yet adjacent to myself.
 

djohannsen

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
762
Reaction score
620
Location
Within 800 meters.
Country
llUnited States
I don't have a problem with the default plural being applied to a hex and itself.
This is consistent with language in pure mathematics (my discipline).

But then, what are examples of situations where it actually matters?
A scenario SSR involving both pillboxes and trenches required that the trenches setup "adjacent" to the pillbox. I was just curious whether the SSR precluded the trench from being in the pillbox hex (my preferred placement).

I'm only playing around with setups, so the question wasn't all that pressing, but going forward it would be nice to have an authoritative ruling.
 

djohannsen

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
762
Reaction score
620
Location
Within 800 meters.
Country
llUnited States
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.
In my original post, I said: "In particular, I was wondering if a location is ADJACENT to itself, and whether a hex is adjacent to itself." I thought that I was fairly clear in distinguishing between the two concepts. So, my question is if separate locations in the same hex are adjacent. As per my reply immediately prior, whether a pillbox and trench in the same hex (I don't dispute that they are different locations) are "adjacent" (as the SSR required that trenches be "adjacent" to the pillbox).
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,735
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
No. But it doesn't address the question debated in this thread.

I would say that ADJACENT units may not be adjacent, for example if at different levels of a building.
ADJACENT is about Locations, adjacent is about hexes.
Units at different levels with at least one intervening level are not ADJACENT but share a hexside(s) and are adjacent. Units or hexes can be adjacent and not be ADJACENT but I cannot fathom an instance where units are ADJACENT but not adjacent (sharing one or more hexsides).
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,437
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
So, my question is if separate locations in the same hex are adjacent.
They can be, but are not necessarily so. Ground-level and 1st-level of a multi-level building would be adjacent, but ground level and 2nd-level (or higher) would not be. The concept of hexes side-by-side remains, but they are in the vertical plane (as if the boards were three-dimensional).

I would not dispute that a trench and a pillbox in the same hex can be called "adjacent".

However, the reality is that you are not actually querying a rules term here at all. You're querying the wording of specific SSRs in specific scenarios (or hypothetical SSRs in hypothetical scenarios). It's not the job of the rules to answer such questions, it's the job of the scenario designer/publisher. Some scenario designers can be remarkably obtuse when it comes to SSR wordings -- what's obvious to them may not be so obvious to anyone else. Most of the time, if you're not able to get a specific answer direct from the source, the best solution is to discuss it with your opponent and come to a mutually satisfactory agreement. Once you've played a few hundred scenarios you come to realise that writing VC and SSRs is an art, and not one that every scenario designer has mastered.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
In my original post, I said: "In particular, I was wondering if a location is ADJACENT to itself, and whether a hex is adjacent to itself." I thought that I was fairly clear in distinguishing between the two concepts. So, my question is if separate locations in the same hex are adjacent. As per my reply immediately prior, whether a pillbox and trench in the same hex (I don't dispute that they are different locations) are "adjacent" (as the SSR required that trenches be "adjacent" to the pillbox).
After what I understand of the rules, Locations never can be adjacent (only hexes can).
Hexes never can be ADJACENT (only Locations can).
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
No it is not.
Well, logic and mathematics don't have default meanings for adjacent and ADJACENT, so in a sense, you're right. But by default, when one described a binary relation (something that could be true, or not, for any two objects of a specific type), it is perfectly allowed to define one object to be in relation with itself. There's even a specific word ("reflexive") for the situation where it is always true, as in "less than or equal" (any number is "less than or equal" to itself). And in mathematical texts, one never takes grammatical precautions: the default is to use the plural ("two vectors are colinear iff..."), but it is understood that this also covers the case when the two are really just one.

Of course, there is no obligation that ASL rules follow the mathematical usage. But yes, mathematics and logic (which is, after all, a part of mathematics) do follow this convention - at least in the two languages in which I read them [English and French].
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
While a lot of rules do spell out "ADJACENT and same Location" - e.g., A10.5:
"...may it end a RtPh ADJACENT to or in the same Location with a Known enemy unit..."

... I think the Q&A in question is trying to "catch" all those rules/situations where this is not done, but probably should have done so.

E.g., A15.5:
"A Final Heat of Battle DR ≥ 12 causes the affected unit to become broken if it is not already, and Disrupted (19.12), and to Surrender immediately to any ADJACENT Known Good Order enemy Infantry/Cavalry as if they shared the same Location."

... it wouldn't make much sense (IMO) that such a unit would surrender to an enemy unit in an ADJACENT Location, but not to an enemy unit in the same Location.
 
Last edited:

djohannsen

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
762
Reaction score
620
Location
Within 800 meters.
Country
llUnited States
No it is not.
Interesting to hear that, as I am a practicing mathematician. And may I ask how you are qualified to assert what is standard usage in the mathematical community (you spoke quite authoritatively, so can only I assume that you are also a mathematician)?

(Of course I was referring to the usage of the plural not precluding that only a single object is being considered and not the particulars of adjacent hexes.)
 
Last edited:
Top