Leaving the Location of the building is the difference.
You aren't leaving any location of the building hex.
Rowhouse Control - lost by Infiltration?
- Thread starter Tuomo
- Start date
You aren't leaving any location of the building hex.
You are in the same location, bypassing allows you to assume a separate condition of being in the hex.
Cav horses are in bypass, who in the building are holding onto the reigns outside the window?
Minefields in a building hex.
You don't get attacked while "IN" the building, but while bypassing the building "outside" you get attacked.
Yet are still in the same location.
ScottRomanowski
Forum Guru
I found it in "The Unofficial Perry Sez Collection" here. It's from 15 July 2019.
Control and Rowhouse "bypass"
Q&A posted here with permission from person who sent it to MMP. No. ...Perry MMP On July 15, 2019 at 2:28 AM wrote: Perry, Hi! If a friendly Good Order MMC uses Rowhouse Bypass while an enemy Good Order MMC is another Location of the same Rowhouse, does the enemy MMC gain Control of...
www.gamesquad.com
Sparafucil3
Forum Guru
Americans control the Building. They move along the red path (Bypass in F4). Who controls the Building at the end of the move?
If you're being consistent, you have to say the Americans control it. This is the problem with the Q&A IMO. It leads to this line of thinking and I don't believe this is the intended consequence. -- jim
sdennis
Elder Member
I agree wholeheartedly and than we start having reality arguments, but Jim's case is a 40m sprint and the rowhouse is a meter thick wall that you go around... but what if the doors are at extreme ends of the hexes of the rowhouse
Sparafucil3
Forum Guru
And Building Control is established by being the only unit IN the Building. Don't get confused by Hex Control or Location Control. There is only one Hex or one Location at the Ground level. Those are never lost. But per A26.11, During play, a side gains Control of a ... building by occupying it with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC without the presence of an armed enemy ground unit ... in that same ... building. If a unit is being attacked by mines--something that can only happen when your "outside" the Building--that unit is clearly not IN the Building and Control could pass to the others side Rules as Written.
IMO, the rules haven't kept up with the artwork. I don't know how they could be written more clearly either. -- jim
Sparafucil3
Forum Guru
I focus on the Rules as Written. The easiest way to see it is to image EVERY hex has a Minefield in it. Mines cannot affect units moving IN a Building. If you can be attacked you are no longer IN and Control should revert.I agree wholeheartedly and than we start having reality arguments, but Jim's case is a 40m sprint and the rowhouse is a meter thick wall that you go around... but what if the doors are at extreme ends of the hexes of the rowhouse
Clearly, I lost that argument as I used that--along with FFMO at the rowhouse Vertex and Snap Shots with ZERO TEM when moving across the open end of a "U-shaped" Building--and they were not accepted as valid. IMO, the rules as written do not support the conclusion but Perry has been consistent in his answer so we play it as he sees it.
Stew's point about "Not Leaving a Building Location" is the only thing I could think of to try and resolve everything but it leads to the issue of the Long bypass I highlighted in post 24. IMO, we either need some update to the rules to reflect the current state of play or we need a bunch of clean examples reflecting the current interpretation of the rules. I have no idea how a person is supposed to read the rule book and get to where we are today. That's why I wrote the original article. -- jim
Gordon
Forum Guru
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,570
- Reaction score
- 3,109
- Country
-
Why not something along the lines of, if you claim building TEM during a hypothetical DFF attack you retain control of the building. If you don't, you lose control?
I'm sure those more knowledgeable of the rules will shoot tons of holes in this, just like happens to any of my squads that try bypassing an obstacle and are mown down by an unseen LOS.
I'm sure those more knowledgeable of the rules will shoot tons of holes in this, just like happens to any of my squads that try bypassing an obstacle and are mown down by an unseen LOS.
Sparafucil3
Forum Guru
I made that argument. Perry doesn't see it that way. -- jim
PresterJohn
Elder Member
In this case the squad is moving two hexsides in the open outside the building and in the original case the squad is not moving any hexsides in the open. There is a lack of equivalency. This lack of equivalency also extends to the number of vertices being considered in the two cases. There is no equivalency and therefore no consistency.
semenza
Senior Member
Considering the way Building Control counts Rowhouses as one building in a special way, I think the ruling for maintaining Control during the (also special) vertex bypass needs to be counted as another "also special" for Rowhouses.
These special control items for Rowhouses makes them work like other large buildings for Building Control. This, to me, seems like a game play mechanic. Otherwise controlling whole rowhouses could be nearly impossible.
Rowhouses are special ..... they are one but also separate.
Seth
These special control items for Rowhouses makes them work like other large buildings for Building Control. This, to me, seems like a game play mechanic. Otherwise controlling whole rowhouses could be nearly impossible.
Rowhouses are special ..... they are one but also separate.
Seth
Sparafucil3
Forum Guru
You ignore the argument being made by Stew. The American unit NEVER leaves a Building Location even though it does leave the Building. -- jim
Gordon
Forum Guru
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,570
- Reaction score
- 3,109
- Country
-
Sorta like the Trinity of Christianity.
PresterJohn
Elder Member
- I never ignore Stew.
- Normal bypass movement is made without entering the obstacle as per A4.3.
Sparafucil3
Forum Guru
But, as Stew suggested, you never leave a Building Location, whether using Row-house or Normal Bypass. Such a conclusion leads to the accepting the situation I posted about. The American unit NEVER leaves a Building Location of the Building in question EVEN while leaving the Building.
No Rowhouse bypass here. If DD7/EE7 were mined, a unit would be attacked Exiting DD7 and again for entering EE7 (assuming it survives the DD7 attack). Control does not change hands in this situation either. Again, I don't think the rules support this conclusion.
The nearest I can figure is that moving from one accessible, adjacent Building Location to another allows the side to retain control. This isn't codified ANYWHERE in Q&A or the rules. I don't understand how we get to here from what's written in the rulebook or Q&A. -- jim
Last edited:
PresterJohn
Elder Member
Let's just back up a minute. In your original example of the MMC leaving the building to use bypass (normal bypass as opposed to the "bypass" in B23.71) to notionally retain control. The contra-position is that you could gain control of a building by using bypass in a hex of that building rather than entering the building. However A26.11 makes it clear this is not possible. Also A26.11 gives the example of a bypass armed vehicle preventing control of the hex/location but doesn't prevent gaining control of the building. So it seems that you can control a hex location but not necessarily contest the building control. The infantry in bypass (not "bypass") seem to be in the same boat.
apbills
Elder Member
The difference is that in the case of the Rowhouse move, you use 3MF to make the move of one Location (Hex). You do not use 1MF to move to the vertex and then use 2MF to move into the building. The rule allows for a defender to use DFF against that moving unit for 1 of those MF tracing LOS to the vertex. That is not the same as a unit using 1 MF to bypass a building hex.
SSlunt
Senior Member
The rule actually says that the unit spends. one movement factor outside of the building
On a second point if the Q&A was done in 2019 is it in any the latest rulebook not just on GS
On a second point if the Q&A was done in 2019 is it in any the latest rulebook not just on GS
Sparafucil3
Forum Guru
There is an additional difference which seems to be in play: one moves from one Location to an Adjacent Accessible Location. IMO, this seems to be the only common thread between each of these two moves:
In each case, the Americans would retain Control of the Building. One uses the 3MF you argue for here, and one doesn't.
Stew's argument was (paraphrase) "The moving unit never leaves a Building Location". Well, neither does this AND it uses the same 3 MF.
The best thing we have consistency. However, I challenge you to square this with the rules. There is NO doubt the unit leaves the Building in all three examples. A unit can be attacked with 0 TEM in example one (Snap Shot along the EE7/DD7 hexside), -1 FFMO and Interdiction at the L7/M7/M8 vertex.
The first two don't lose Control and the third one does. The ONLY thing I can see is the whole Adjacent Accessible Building Location and like I said, that isn't codified ANYWHERE that I know of. -- jim