J44 / ASL238 Audacity - AAR

[bendizoid]

‘ALL rules pertaining to same-level LOS also apply to Continuous Slope LOS’. That’s ALL of them.

 

[BattleSchool]

This.

I can see the application of the Alpine Hills rules to continuous slopes. Mountainous terrain is not always smooth drops containing scree and deadfall (usually near the edges of the tree line). If the terrain also drops into a valley/river there would be no reason not to assume the same broken terrain does not exist to the bottom of the slope.

We need to be careful when extrapolating from an optional rule like Alpine Hills. The rule for the latter is concerned only with LOS through equal-elevation hill hexes.

As I said earlier, this implies that Alpine Hills do not apply to non-hill hexes such as level 0 terrain adjacent to a valley hex. Although by any normal measure, a unit on the valley floor would perceive all surrounding level-zero hexes as "hills," this higher ground does not pass the test for a "hill mass."

B10.1 ...A hill mass is depicted in various shades of brown; the lightest shade in any group of contiguous brown hexes being level 1, the next darker shade being level 2, and so on.

The second poiint is that the illustrated EX in B10.211 is silent on the impact, if any, of Alpine Hills on a Continuous Slope. For example, it would have been a simple matter to say that there is no LOS from 3K7 to K9 due to the effects of Alpine Hills on a Continuous Slope.

IMO, this ought to be resolved with a Perry Sez.

EX: Using the Alpine Hill option, the only level 2 hill hexes on board 3 which can be seen from 3K7 are J7, J6, H2, W5, W6, W7, and DD2.

 

[Russ Isaia]

There is an conceptual contradiction between B.5 and B10.211. In the case of Continuous Slopes, one is to treat hill hexes that are at different levels as if they were all the same level. In the case of Alpine Hills, on the other hand, one is to treat hill hexes that are at the same level as if one or more in the middle were at a different (higher) level).

That does not mean the Alpine Hill option does not apply to Continuous Slopes. Just that you could at least debate whether the Alpine Hills rule is a "same level-LOS" rule within the meaning of the B.5. Until Perry Sez otherwise, of course.

 

[bendizoid]

Question, why would the rule book say ‘ALL rules pertaining to same-level LOS also apply to Continuous Slope LOS.’ ? Maybe they said that because ‘ALL rules pertaining to same-level LOS also apply to Continuous Slope LOS’.

 

[von Marwitz]

IMO, this ought to be resolved with a Perry Sez.

It couldn't harm. You are going to file it?

Cheers,
von Marwitz

 

[BattleSchool]

Question, why would the rule book say ‘ALL rules pertaining to same-level LOS also apply to Continuous Slope LOS.’ ? Maybe they said that because ‘ALL rules pertaining to same-level LOS also apply to Continuous Slope LOS’.

One could pose a similar question wrt the (miss) use of the word "through" in the rules for Alpine Hills.

B.4 HINDRANCE LEVEL:

In the course of relating LOS rules, the word "through" will be used only in relation to a LOS which is actually traced through that terrain type at an elevation wherein the terrain has some effect.

*10.211 ALPINE HILL OPTION:

The previous rule treats hills as a series of plateaus rather than constantly rising and rolling terrain. Those wishing to simulate the latter style of terrain can invoke a SSR for Alpine Hills by allowing equal-elevation hill hexes to block LOS through (not into) them.

The rules for Alpine Hills are optional. IOW, they're not part of the main body of rules. While it's possible that B.5 is meant to have an impact on Alpine Hills, neither the rules for Alpine Hills nor the illustrated EX address this possibility.

 

[bendizoid]

One could pose a similar question wrt the (miss) use of the word "through" in the rules for Alpine Hills.





The rules for Alpine Hills are optional. IOW, they're not part of the main body of rules. While it's possible that B.5 is meant to have an impact on Alpine Hills, neither the rules for Alpine Hills nor the illustrated EX address this possibility.

Why would they say that then ? If they didn’t mean it ? Why would they add in the continuous slope rule and then turn around and then say it doesn’t apply ?

 

[BattleSchool]

Dunno. It's bit like many of the rule sections in Chapter E. They are add-ons and occasionally conflict with the main body of rules.

Best to ask Perry, because while the rules for a Continuous Slope apply to all elevations, the rules for Alpine Hills apply only to hill hexes. That in itself should be enough to cast doubt on how the two rules are meant to interact.

 

[BattleSchool]

It couldn't harm. You are going to file it?

Cheers,
von Marwitz

I've no plans to submit a Perry Sez.

I think there are at least two questions that need asking. But there could be more. So I'd rather let the subject percolate and see what else comes to light.

 

[Paul S NJ]

Bob,
I think you make a good point about the continuous slope rule and alpine hills. I can only say I haven't played it that way. I've only applied it to same level LOS. I would be hesitant to play (this scenario at least) using that interpretation without a prior player agreement or a Perry Sez.

I'd agree a Perry sez to clarify it would be a good idea. Who wants to run with the ball?

Frankly I'm more concerned that when I type 'Perry Sez', my autocorrect wants to change it to 'Perry sex'. That's not a visual I need Sunday morning, thank you.

-Paul

 

[Actionjick]

Bob,
I think you make a good point about the continuous slope rule and alpine hills. I can only say I haven't played it that way. I've only applied it to same level LOS. I would be hesitant to play (this scenario at least) using that interpretation without a prior player agreement or a Perry Sez.

I'd agree a Perry sez to clarify it would be a good idea. Who wants to run with the ball?

Frankly I'm more concerned that when I type 'Perry Sez', my autocorrect wants to change it to 'Perry sex'. That's not a visual I need Sunday morning, thank you.

-Paul

Harkens back to the Perry Licks post!

 

[von Marwitz]

I think there are at least two questions that need asking

Which ones?

First one would be if the Alpine Hill Option only applies to same level LOS (of course better worded, with references, etc.)

The second question would be what?

von Marwitz

Edit:
Very interesting issue BTW, this Alpine Hill thingy...

 

[BattleSchool]

Which ones?

First one would be if the Alpine Hill Option only applies to same level LOS (of course better worded, with references, etc.)

The second question would be what?

von Marwitz

The most obvious question is whether Apline Hills are intended to have an impact on a Continuous Slope.

If so, what is it?

Do Alpine Hills block LOS along a Continuous slope?

And what is the effect of any half-level obstacles or hindrances on these "Continuous Alpine Slopes?" For example, will a wall on an Alpine Hill rise from this quasi-level? What about terrain such as brush and crag? IOW, would half-level obstacles or hindrances on these "Continuous Alpine Slopes" have an effect on LOS between higher-level Locations?

Or how about orchards (in and out of season), Light Woods, and SMOKE. At what base level are these hindrances calculated from?

I've probably missed something. But I think you see where this can lead.

Addendum
ASL essentially has three states of LOS: clear, hindered, or blocked. Although LOS is usually blocked by an Obstacle, in certain cases the cumulative effects of LOS hindrances can also block LOS.

Perhaps a better way of looking at the rules for Alpine Hills would be to treat LOS between equal-elevation hill hexes as if LOS is blocked by a notional +6 hindrance that has no other effect on play.

If one wanted Alpine Hills to block LOS along a Continuous Slope comprised of one or more Alpine Hill hexes, one could do so by invoking the same notional +6 hindrance that would have no other effect on play.

 

[von Marwitz]

@BattleSchool @Paul S NJ @bendizoid

Guys,

I was just about to formulate a 'Perry Sez' request providing rules etc. when that little 'QA' sign in my eASLRB in front of B.5 struck my eye. Lo and behold, a 'Perry Sez' already exists on this very issue:

B0.5 & B10.211 - Does "alpine hills" block LOS down an continuous slope?
A. No.

Doh!

von Marwitz

 

[BattleSchool]

Kaffee wird serviert!

Glad I let it percolate.

 

[Tuomo]

...there would be no reason not to assume the same broken terrain does not exist to the bottom of the slope.

Too...many..negatives ...AAAAHHHH<kersplat> (brain asplodes)

 

[The Purist]

Too...many..negatives ...AAAAHHHH<kersplat> (brain asplodes)

Yoiks! Ya,.... bit sloppy. Just strike out that last bit.

 

[MajorDomo]

Wow, no continuous slopes on alpine hills!

Sure that I played that one incorrectly several times.

 

[bendizoid]

Hog hammit, ruined the whole alpine thing for me. Best terrain since bamboo.

 

[Gordon]

Sure seems like an odd ruling.