Usually when I hear of an internal inconsistency, I think that is something where the object is inconsistent with itself, not in reference to some external thing. I would call what you are pointing out an "external inconsistency", i.e. an inconsistency between one model (ASL rules) and another model (your understanding of reality, or possibly your understanding of how reality maps to ASL rules). As long as the rules are internally consistent, I'm good. That you feel there is an inconsistency between the rules and some other model, well that would seem to be a problem you have to solve on your own.
JR
If we are going to pick nits, as you seem to want to do here, I don't 'feel' anything of the sort. I've analysed something, not emotionally responded to something.
As you are well aware, ASL is a game system that is completely designed in reference to external things. The objects of the game, for example a unit counter and how it is used, are based on modeling actually phenomena in the real world.
As such, any reference to internal inconsistency in ASL is completely justified if ASL is incorrectly modeling elements of WW2 tactical warfare. I don't particularly care if you disagree with this point. So, I refute your argument that I am using 'some other model' to describe this inconsistency, although I don't disagree that I may have to solve it without your assistance, since you seem to think it's okay for DC to appear by magic.
Clearly, in this case, wrt to using DC to have them magically appear in front of a pillbox on the other side of the wire and mines, this is without doubt logically inconsistent with what you and I both know about how DC are used or can be used. Poof! ASL has just turned into a fantasy game. Hey, JR, if you want to play a fantasy game, I'd pick another one besides ASL if I were you! As if my weird perception of WW2 reality is in any way inferior to some other magnificently superior one...
Further, I say to you, that it doesn't matter if you want to nitpick the definition of internal consistency, without even attempting to answer the questions I've posed in my post.
This kind of response that you've provided here, is a typical trick of people in forums, which I see all the time, ad nauseam , who have been out-argued or have no meaningful retort, but still a) refuse to participate in the dialog and b) must find some minor flaw in the argument presented, in order to de-legitimize a perfectly clear and valid presentation of the issue.
Kindly answer these questions I've already posted above, that is, if you want to engage in a dialog about this in a more reasoned matter; otherwise, you're just nipping at the edges of the issue and in a manner which is not in the least hitting the target as you intend. For your convenience, here they are again:
1) The game system now allows play that is inconsistent with the aspects of the design objective, which seem to be, unless I am mistaken, to provide a very detailed and enjoyable simulation of tactical WW2 combat (that is, a war game that simulates reality). Do you think that this is not the design objective of ASL? Have I got that wrong?
2) Does anyone (including you, JR) think that being able to chuck a DC across the wire and into the PB without having to deal with mines and wire is, by any means, consistent with the aforementioned design objective?
cheers, Marc