Rowhouse Control - lost by Infiltration?

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,517
Reaction score
5,374
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
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.
I think my position is better summed up in post 40. This shows all the edge cases. The Americans retain control in the first two. If your argument is "the American unit never leaves a Building Location so it makes sense they retain control" then example three is my Conclusion from that argument (which Strew put forth). The American unit never leaves a Building Location EVEN while it does leave the Building in all examples, but the third case is more egregious.

The ONLY difference between the first two and the last one is in the first two, the units are moving from one Building Location to another adjacent, Accessible Building Location. In the last, this is not the case. So, from the rules and the Q&A, the ONLY thing I can say--and this is by inference--is control is retained when moving from one Building Location to an adjacent, Accessible Building Location EVEN if such a movement leaves the Building. Now, I challenge you to find this in the rules as written or the Q&A.

Sadly, I don't know how to write the rule better but a bunch of examples would go a long ways towards codifying this. -- jim
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,490
Reaction score
1,029
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Are you suggesting a modification to the A26.11 rule?

"During play, a side gains Control of a Location/hex/building by occupying it with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC without the presence of an armed enemy ground unit [EXC: subterranean units] in that same Location/hex/building (see also 26.13-.14 for hex/building Control). Control can be gained during the act of movement; a unit need not end a phase (or even survive Defensive First Fire) in the Location/hex/building to gain Control of it. However, Control cannot be gained via Bypass."

In the first two cases you are not using Bypass, so it would follow that you are in the building, regardless of potential DFF opportunities. The only way to not be in the building and still in the building hex (at least in these cases) would be if you were Bypassing the hex.
 

PresterJohn

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
612
Location
The Orient
Country
llAustralia
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
Such units moving/routing on the ground level expend three MF (one to “bypass” in the hex it is leaving where it would be attacked by any OBA/Residual-FP and two to enter the building), and can be Interdicted or Defensive First Fired upon with FFMO/FFNAM DRM by any unit capable of doing so that can trace a LOS to the vertex of the hexside crossed by the moving/routing unit on that side of the building.

Actually no, the rule doesn't say the unit spends one MF outside the building. The rule uses the pseudo bypass ("bypass") explanation and allows the moving unit to be attacked in the first hex with vulnerabilities for what must be a type of hazardous movement as if it was moving in the open at the vertex (but isn't).
 

PresterJohn

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
612
Location
The Orient
Country
llAustralia
I think my position is better summed up in post 40. This shows all the edge cases. The Americans retain control in the first two. If your argument is "the American unit never leaves a Building Location so it makes sense they retain control" then example three is my Conclusion from that argument (which Strew put forth). The American unit never leaves a Building Location EVEN while it does leave the Building in all examples, but the third case is more egregious.

The ONLY difference between the first two and the last one is in the first two, the units are moving from one Building Location to another adjacent, Accessible Building Location. In the last, this is not the case. So, from the rules and the Q&A, the ONLY thing I can say--and this is by inference--is control is retained when moving from one Building Location to an adjacent, Accessible Building Location EVEN if such a movement leaves the Building. Now, I challenge you to find this in the rules as written or the Q&A.

Sadly, I don't know how to write the rule better but a bunch of examples would go a long ways towards codifying this. -- jim
In the first two cases the unit is in one hex of the building, moving to another hex of the building using the full MF cost to enter the second building hex. In both cases there are risks to that movement. In the third case the unit is not using the full cost but bypass (not "bypass") and bypass movement is made without entering the obstacle as per A4.3. This clearly means that while the unit is in the hex it is not in the building. Not being in the building for 1MF seems to be critical here. In the other two cases there are no MF being spent outside the building, therefore not leaving the building with respect to control. This seems to be consistent and coherent.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,517
Reaction score
5,374
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
In the first two cases the unit is in one hex of the building, moving to another hex of the building using the full MF cost to enter the second building hex. In both cases there are risks to that movement. In the third case the unit is not using the full cost but bypass (not "bypass") and bypass movement is made without entering the obstacle as per A4.3. This clearly means that while the unit is in the hex it is not in the building. Not being in the building for 1MF seems to be critical here. In the other two cases there are no MF being spent outside the building, therefore not leaving the building with respect to control. This seems to be consistent and coherent.
There is minimum time requirement for control to change hands. In both instances, the unit is outside the building. This is demonstrated in a couple of ways:
  • If the hexes were mined, the would be subject to attack only if they are outside the building. Every case depicted would result in a minefield attack
  • In the case of a rowhouse, a unit is subject to FFMO at the vertex rather than the +2/+3 Building TEM
  • In the case of DD7 to EE7, a snap shot along the DD7/EE7 hexside receives 0 TEM rather than the +2/+3 Building TEM
As a means of reference A26.11 says (in part) 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 ... . I don't see how any of this is consistent or coherent with the rules as written. It's not about MF's spent. It's about whether those MFs took it outside the building for a moment. Again, you need to understand I am not speaking about Location of Hex Control. All it takes for Building Control to change hands is for the gaining side to occupy the Building without the presence of an enemy units, however briefly that may be. All of those examples demonstrably show the moving unit has left the Building. -- jim
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,517
Reaction score
5,374
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Are you suggesting a modification to the A26.11 rule?

"During play, a side gains Control of a Location/hex/building by occupying it with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC without the presence of an armed enemy ground unit [EXC: subterranean units] in that same Location/hex/building (see also 26.13-.14 for hex/building Control). Control can be gained during the act of movement; a unit need not end a phase (or even survive Defensive First Fire) in the Location/hex/building to gain Control of it. However, Control cannot be gained via Bypass."

In the first two cases you are not using Bypass, so it would follow that you are in the building, regardless of potential DFF opportunities. The only way to not be in the building and still in the building hex (at least in these cases) would be if you were Bypassing the hex.
See the example move from DD7 to EE7.

Also, I am not speaking about a moving unit GAINING Control, I am speaking about a moving unit possibly LOSING Control. In each of the cases I showed, it is clear the moving unit has left the Building, however briefly. FFMO/Interdiction for Rowhouse Bypass, the "Long Bypass" isn't really in question, and the move from DD7 to EE7 can theoretically be attacked by a 0 TEM Snap Shot along the hexside. Remember, all the enemy has to do is solely occupy the Building, however briefly, to gain Control. If those moves leave the Building--and rules as written, I believe the do--Control changes hands. This is why I think there needs to be some sort of errata or clarifying examples to reconcile the rule book with the Q&A. As I said in my article however, I am clearly in the minority on this issue. -- jim
 

PresterJohn

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
612
Location
The Orient
Country
llAustralia
There is minimum time requirement for control to change hands. In both instances, the unit is outside the building. This is demonstrated in a couple of ways:
  • If the hexes were mined, the would be subject to attack only if they are outside the building. Every case depicted would result in a minefield attack
  • In the case of a rowhouse, a unit is subject to FFMO at the vertex rather than the +2/+3 Building TEM
  • In the case of DD7 to EE7, a snap shot along the DD7/EE7 hexside receives 0 TEM rather than the +2/+3 Building TEM
As a means of reference A26.11 says (in part) 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 ... . I don't see how any of this is consistent or coherent with the rules as written. It's not about MF's spent. It's about whether those MFs took it outside the building for a moment. Again, you need to understand I am not speaking about Location of Hex Control. All it takes for Building Control to change hands is for the gaining side to occupy the Building without the presence of an enemy units, however briefly that may be. All of those examples demonstrably show the moving unit has left the Building. -- jim
So hold on another minute now, lets have a closer look at your use of the term "minimum time" because I like that. Really.

Now what is the minimum time that an MMC must be out of the building to count as having left the building? One turn? One phase? One action? One MF? An MF represents a portion of the units capability to do stuff. Usually doing stuff that takes time has MF costs. To take control of a building for example, you have to spend MF entering the building. Is there anyway to take control of a building in your MPh without spending a MF? Should other phases be considered? Probably not because this is a MPh problem for the phasing player. So is there any other way to occupy a building during the MPh without spending MF? If there is not then minimum time in terms of MF is worth considering and leaving a building for "1 MF of time" is sounding like a reasonable "minimum time". If there is reciprosity then for consistency, leaving a building for less than a MF is not counting as leaving the building. Consistent and coherent.

In your Rowhouse example a minefield attack occurs in each case because of the hazard of the movement exposing the squad to losses even though they have not spent a MF outside the building. Rule B23.71 is very specific that the MF are spent in the building. "Bypass" described in B23.71 is obviously a special case of movement with considerable hazard. In your first "gap" example the minefield attack occurs because the movement is hazerdous through the open space, but no MF are spent in the open space. Even for a Snapshot as per A8.15 there is no MF expenditure requirement to take the defensive fire other than that the hexisde is crossed. The target must have moved across the hexside but no MF are spent crossing the hexside (and you can now imagine a new contrary example). If you can demonstrate that a MF is spent in the open then I will certainly go along with you and say that Elvis has left the building i.e. your third illustrated example clearly has because of the requirements of A4.3.

So if a single MF has been spent outside the building then that counts as the "minimum time" in your terms, for control to be lost.
This is still consistent and coherent.
 

Gordon

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
2,534
Reaction score
3,028
Country
llUnited States
So is the distinction that rowhouse "bypass" is ONLY the vertex and not the normal hexsides (and included vertices) of normal bypass? But you are still "outside" the buildings of both hexes of the rowhouse wrt. mine attacks. You're not quantum tunneling across the black bar.
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,713
Reaction score
2,224
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
Is there anyway to take control of a building in your MPh without spending a MF? Should other phases be considered? Probably not because this is a MPh problem for the phasing player. So is there any other way to occupy a building during the MPh without spending MF?
I think the answer is yes to both these questions, but the circumstances are rare and shouldn't affect this question.

American unit A is in one Location of a building, the only enemy unit is the building too. The building is controlled by the enemy. American unit B places WP grenades in the enemy unit's Location, and the enemy unit is eliminated by the MC. American unit A gains control of the building during the MPh and has not expended any MP.

A vehicle spends its last MP in bypass of an unoccupied enemy-controlled building. The vehicle is destroyed at this point, the crew survives and after all D1F is placed in the building. It has zero MF to expend, so it gains control of the building without spending any MF to occupy it.
 

PresterJohn

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
612
Location
The Orient
Country
llAustralia
So is the distinction that rowhouse "bypass" is ONLY the vertex and not the normal hexsides (and included vertices) of normal bypass? But you are still "outside" the buildings of both hexes of the rowhouse wrt. mine attacks. You're not quantum tunneling across the black bar.
Given that the MFs are spent inside the buildings, perhaps "bypass" is like slowly quantum tunneling one soldier at a time, with hazardous movement and mine attacks to make it interesting.
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,490
Reaction score
1,029
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
So is the distinction that rowhouse "bypass" is ONLY the vertex and not the normal hexsides (and included vertices) of normal bypass? But you are still "outside" the buildings of both hexes of the rowhouse wrt. mine attacks. You're not quantum tunneling across the black bar.
I see the distinction is that the move is a single move expenditure, i.e., 3MF, with the unit moving from one Building Location to another of the same building. The DFF opportunity at the vertex is immaterial. In this case, DFF can be performed in any order, in either the new Building Location or the vertex (i.e., the moving unit is considered to be in both of these positions simultaneously). The reasoning behind 1MF being used at the vertex is simply the mechanism to prevent more than one DFF shot from any unit at that vertex.

In the case of a bypassing unit, the unit expends once for the move and takes DFF in the bypassing position until all DFF is completed, and then it either continues its move or if pinned/broken is placed in the obstacle.
 

MajorDomo

DM? Chuck H2O in his face
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
3,196
Reaction score
1,053
Location
Fluid
Country
llUnited States
I like the solution that building control is kept in the first two examples, but lost in the third "greater bypass" example.

The rules probably need an update/clarification as to Jim's point.

An "example one" loss of a multi- hex rowhouse control with one MMC of each side in the rowhouse means neither side can move or advance from one rowhouse building hex to another without ceding control of the rowhouse.

That is an undesirable gameplay effect to me.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,517
Reaction score
5,374
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
If you can demonstrate that a MF is spent in the open then I will certainly go along with you and say that Elvis has left the building i.e. your third illustrated example clearly has because of the requirements of A4.3.
The Control rules aren't concerned with MF/MP. All they care about is the Location/Hex/Building ever solely occupied by the opposing side. If the Location/Hex/Building is ever occupied by the opposing side, then Control changes hand. So all that has to be demonstrated is, Yes, my unit left the building--however briefly--so Control changes hands. Focusing on MF/MP is a Red Herring. Instead, focus who occupies the Location/Hex/Building and if the enemy is ever in the Location/Hex/Building alone.

ASLRB said:
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.
A unit moving inside a Building is not subject to a Minefield attack. The mention of the attack when using Bypass shows Rowhouse Bypass is "outside". It also shows the "Long bypass" is outside. The earlier DD7 to EE7 movement is also subject to attack. For that to happen it has, you guessed it, leave the Building and re-enter it. If each hex were Mined, then a unit would be attacked in both hexes. This is why I keep mentioning Minefields. You cannot be attacked by them as long as you remain completely inside the Building. The case of FFMO/Interdiction for Rowhouse bypass also shows the unit is "outside". You have to be in Open Ground to even be Interdicted so the unit clearly isn't in the Building. A Snap Shot along the side does not receive other TEM in the hex. The rule covering Snap Shot (A8.15) says "The FFNAM/FFMO DRM cannot apply (even if the entire length of the hexside is along Open Ground), nor does the TEM of most other terrain in the target hex ..." so clearly the Snap Shot considers the moving unit "OUTSIDE" of the TEM (e.g. Building).

If you can't see that each of these examples clearly suggest the moving unit has temporarily LEFT the Building, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Having said all of that, Perry has clearly ruled. That is his role. So now, all I am trying to do is understand how to adjudicate it in game play. In this post I offered the three examples I included in my article. In the first two instances Perry has ruled the moving unit retains control. The third examples is almost universally consider a loss of American Control. In all three examples, the American unit never leaves a Building Location. In all three examples, the American unit demonstrably leaves the Building, even if only momentarily.

So as near as I can tell, in the first two situations, the American unit moves from on Building Location to an adjacent, Accessible Building Location. In the third example, the unit does not. To be fair, I do not think the third example has a Perry Sez on it so I can not say for sure Control is lost. @apbills this is why I suggest the rule needs a clarification or errata. As written, Control should change hands in all three instances. As adjudicated, the first two do not. What remains to be seen is how Control is retained. Is it retained because the American unit never left a Building Location? If so, then the Americans must also retain Control in the third example. Is it retain because the American unit in the first two examples moves between adjacent, Accessible Building Locations of the same Building? If so, then the third example remains as we currently understand it. That's what needs to be clarified IMO. Right now, I can only guess at the intent (which I believe to be the adjacent, Accessible Building Location of the same Building). -- jim
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,490
Reaction score
1,029
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
If you can't see that each of these examples clearly suggest the moving unit has temporarily LEFT the Building, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.
The issue is not about temporarily leaving the building. It is solely about whether that temporary status is enough to lose control. Given that temporary status is only applicable during a part of a single movement action, and in fact that movement action also leaves you in the building, without a rule stating you lose control, I am not sure why you would. I don't have any problem with clarification, although I had no problem with the Q&A doing that clarification, and have no problem with my rationale I have presented I use in my head to support that Q&A.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,517
Reaction score
5,374
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
The issue is not about temporarily leaving the building. It is solely about whether that temporary status is enough to lose control. Given that temporary status is only applicable during a part of a single movement action, and in fact that movement action also leaves you in the building, without a rule stating you lose control, I am not sure why you would. I don't have any problem with clarification, although I had no problem with the Q&A doing that clarification, and have no problem with my rationale I have presented I use in my head to support that Q&A.
Because A26.11 says control passes if the other side occupies the Building alone. There is an instant when this happens. That's the issue. A26.11 doesn't care that the condition was temporary, it only asks did it happen. -- jim
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
654
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
So is the distinction that rowhouse "bypass" is ONLY the vertex and not the normal hexsides (and included vertices) of normal bypass? But you are still "outside" the buildings of both hexes of the rowhouse wrt. mine attacks. You're not quantum tunneling across the black bar.
The difference is that you can't be AT that vertex voluntarily. It's not a Movement choice but "an additional" MF expenditure, sort of like entering SMOKE or mud etc.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
654
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
I like the solution that building control is kept in the first two examples, but lost in the third "greater bypass" example.

The rules probably need an update/clarification as to Jim's point.

An "example one" loss of a multi- hex rowhouse control with one MMC of each side in the rowhouse means neither side can move or advance from one rowhouse building hex to another without ceding control of the rowhouse.

That is an undesirable gameplay effect to me.
The normal bypass, the unit is not entering the building.
Bypass doesn't grant control. (noted in the ruleset)
That's why "bypass" wrt ROWHOUSE is denoted differently. As stated above one cannot just Bypass a vertex but rather a hexside and has some obvious distinctive properties.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
654
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
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.
Right,
The rowhouse boys are likely piecemeal running out and immediately back into the building.
The Bypass boys are just running past the building.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
654
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
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
The rule states a 3MF move. It's the same application of MF as moving up a hill into terrain. They are combined and not independent MF expenditures, whereas, normal Bypass Move is.
It simply has to quantify that MF to allow DFF mechanics to come into play.



Such units moving/routing on the ground level expend three MF
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,490
Reaction score
1,029
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Because A26.11 says control passes if the other side occupies the Building alone. There is an instant when this happens. That's the issue. A26.11 doesn't care that the condition was temporary, it only asks did it happen. -- jim
I have yet to find the rule that says a 3MF move from one rowhouse Location to another Location of that Rowhouse constitutes leaving the building. Given you can DFF at the moving unit in the building unlimited times given unlimited units firing, and then go back and fire as it moves through the vertex with some other unit, I don't need more to convince me that barring a rule stating otherwise, the unit is simultaneously in both the building and the vertex. I think that something as important to building control as simply moving between Rowhouse Locations would be defined clearly if it led to loss of control. IMO the absurdity of what could transpire if that was the case should lead one to discount the notion fairly quickly.
 
Top