Mines, rubble, building question

[davegin]

OK, rarely, if ever. do I ask about a rules question. I mostly prefer to scour the rulebook until I find the right interpretation. However, this question came up during a recent playing and I couldn't be certain of the answer.

Let us say you have a three hex building with all three hexes in a row. The middle hex is rubbled. There are 6 AP mine factors in the other two hexes, one minefield on each side of the rubble. Once a unit takes a minefield attack upon entering either of the two mined building hexes, does that unit have to take another if it leaves that hex by entering the adjacent rubble?

One interpretation was that since you don't take a minefield attack when moving through a building and the rubble was/is part of that building, that there is no attack.

The other interpretation was that the unit is leaving the mined location and entering a new location (the rubble) and therefore, is attacked upon leaving.

The correct interpretation of this would greatly affect the mine placements in certain defensive situations, so I would like it clarified. Klas, are you listening?

Thanks, in advance.

 

[clubby]

My gut instinct is that yes they're attacked. A rubble location is no longer a building location.

 

[Sparafucil3]

OK, rarely, if ever. do I ask about a rules question. I mostly prefer to scour the rulebook until I find the right interpretation. However, this question came up during a recent playing and I couldn't be certain of the answer.

Let us say you have a three hex building with all three hexes in a row. The middle hex is rubbled. There are 6 AP mine factors in the other two hexes, one minefield on each side of the rubble. Once a unit takes a minefield attack upon entering either of the two mined building hexes, does that unit have to take another if it leaves that hex by entering the adjacent rubble?

One interpretation was that since you don't take a minefield attack when moving through a building and the rubble was/is part of that building, that there is no attack.

The other interpretation was that the unit is leaving the mined location and entering a new location (the rubble) and therefore, is attacked upon leaving.

The correct interpretation of this would greatly affect the mine placements in certain defensive situations, so I would like it clarified. Klas, are you listening?

Thanks, in advance.

Rubble is no longer a building. To play it as you suggest is to also say that it is/was a building and would still count for building control. Do you play it the second way? I doubt it. -- jim

 

[Paul John]

MMP

One interpretation was that since you don't take a minefield attack when moving through a building and the rubble was/is part of that building, that there is no attack.

There is your first error. You get attacked even if you move upstairs.

B13.4211 says that normal TEM applies to rubble and woods. Only
those? If Yes, can it exit the hex via a building hexside without being
attacked by mines? Can it use a stairwell in the building location
without being attacked by mines?

<<Unless it clears the minefield, it cannot exit the Location without
being attacked by mines.>>

...Perry

 

[Sparafucil3]

MMP

There is your first error. You get attacked even if you move upstairs.

B13.4211 says that normal TEM applies to rubble and woods. Only
those? If Yes, can it exit the hex via a building hexside without being
attacked by mines? Can it use a stairwell in the building location
without being attacked by mines?

<<Unless it clears the minefield, it cannot exit the Location without
being attacked by mines.>>

...Perry

Do you have the full Q&A for context? Moving within the building doesn’t trigger a minefield attack as I recall. This is pretty clear in the rules.

 

[Sparafucil3]

MMP

There is your first error. You get attacked even if you move upstairs.

B13.4211 says that normal TEM applies to rubble and woods. Only
those? If Yes, can it exit the hex via a building hexside without being
attacked by mines? Can it use a stairwell in the building location
without being attacked by mines?

<<Unless it clears the minefield, it cannot exit the Location without
being attacked by mines.>>

...Perry

So I looked up the Q&A for context:

B13.4211, B24.74, & B28.44
If a unit enters a hex containing a minefield and one hex of a multi-hex, multi-story building using the clearance rules to place a partial TB, and, at any point either before the clearance roll or after it fails to clear the minefield is it considered in the building (for TEM purposes, etc.)?
A. It is in the building hex and receives building TEM.

B13.4211 says that normal TEM applies to rubble and woods. Only those? If Yes, can it exit the hex via a building hexside without being attacked by mines? Can it use a stairwell in the building location without being attacked by mines?
A. Unless it clears the minefield, it cannot exit the Location without being attacked by mines.

In context, the Q&A makes sense although I think the wording could have been better. In the Q&A, the unit entered the Location in an attempt to clear. In accordance with B24.74, ... Unless the minefield is cleared, these units may exit the minefield free of minefield attack only by the hexside through which they entered. IMO, this is the point Perry was conveying. It is not being used in the context you suggest (unless I don't understand what you're trying to say).

B28.44 MINEFIELDS IN BUILDING/TRENCH HEXES: Minefields are allowed in non-Interior Building Hexes but do not attack units entering/exiting those hexes through a building hexside unless using Bypass Movement. Neither would mines attack units using Trench movement, or using a Tower’s stairwell.

I will grant you that moving "upstairs" is not crossing a building hexside, but it is definitely NOT entering/exiting the hex either. It is already in the hex so the attack doesn't take place as you describe. -- jim

 

[davegin]

Rubble is no longer a building. To play it as you suggest is to also say that it is/was a building and would still count for building control. Do you play it the second way? I doubt it. -- jim

Actually, Jim, most of the newer scenarios that use building hex control for VC purposes, do count a possible rubble of an eligible VC building as a building (some as rally terrain, for ambush, and street fighting capability, and VC purposes). However, this is usually by SSR or a special rule. ex. TOTR.
My concern would be that since the rubble in my OP was originally part of the three-hex building, would the rubble be considered connect to the original building hexes thus making movement from one directly into the other a hypothetical interior building (thus negating a minefield attack) move? As to rubble treated as a building for any reason, I would see a case for this "interior" move with no attack. But I think it would have to be by SSR per scenario or sets of special rules like TOTR, HazMo, Red Barricades, etc.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Actually, Jim, most of the newer scenarios that use building hex control for VC purposes, do count a possible rubble of an eligible VC building as a building (some as rally terrain, for ambush, and street fighting capability, and VC purposes). However, this is usually by SSR or a special rule. ex. TOTR.

Correct, by SSR which overrides the rules. Ergo, the rules say it isn't a building.

My concern would be that since the rubble in my OP was originally part of the three-hex building, would the rubble be considered connect to the original building hexes thus making movement from one directly into the other a hypothetical interior building (thus negating a minefield attack) move? As to rubble treated as a building for any reason, I would see a case for this "interior" move with no attack. But I think it would have to be by SSR per scenario or sets of special rules like TOTR, HazMo, Red Barricades, etc.

I get the reality of it. Fortunately, we don't play ASL in reality. I am very grateful for that personally -- jim

 

[clubby]

Do you have the full Q&A for context? Moving within the building doesn’t trigger a minefield attack as I recall. This is pretty clear in the rules.

I've never met one person that played it this way.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I've never met one person that played it this way.

I refer you to the rules I quoted above. The rules are pretty clear on this. -- jim

 

[clubby]

I refer you to the rules I quoted above. The rules are pretty clear on this. -- jim

And I could have been more clear. I meant being attacked by mines while moving upstairs.

 

[Paul John]

I appreciate that context. I always thought it was super crazy ASL physics that one couldn't leave the location in any way
without being hit. I never considered that the Perry Sez was limited to a unit trying for clearance.
I totally agree that moving in the building (and esp upstairs) shouldn't result in an attack, but my reading of that
seemed to defy that logic. It does seem a little problematic that a unit that moves into the building hex and attempts
clearance but fails would have to kept track of as they couldn't move upstairs without being hit (if I understand
your point correctly). But this seems like a better way to play it for sure!

 

[sdennis]

I didn't like Perry's answer either because if you MOVE into the hex you can exit to another building hex w/o attack, but if you attempt to CLEAR when you enter you can't?

I thought that allowing the CLEAR ENTER unit to move into another building hex w/o attack just made mines in a building hex less useful which seems like they would be in reality given that mines INSIDE the building don't make sense....

Anyway.

 

[Paul John]

At least it is only with clearance that Euclidean geometry gets warped!
This has grated on me since I read that response and I am soooo happy that folks clarified it for me.
Forum pays off once again!