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.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.
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.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.
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.
It couldn't harm. You are going to file it?IMO, this ought to be resolved with a Perry Sez.
One could pose a similar question wrt the (miss) use of the word "through" in the rules for Alpine Hills.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’.
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 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.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.
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 ?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.
I've no plans to submit a Perry Sez.It couldn't harm. You are going to file it?
Cheers,
von Marwitz
Harkens back to the Perry Licks post!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
Which ones?I think there are at least two questions that need asking
The most obvious question is whether Apline Hills are intended to have an impact on a Continuous Slope.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
Too...many..negatives ...AAAAHHHH<kersplat> (brain asplodes)...there would be no reason not to assume the same broken terrain does not exist to the bottom of the slope.
Yoiks!Too...many..negatives ...AAAAHHHH<kersplat> (brain asplodes)