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
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.
Such a movement is subject to Interdiction. Interdiction is only possible in Open Ground. The same movement would be subject to FFMO. Clearly, the unit isn't in the building at some point. -- jim
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,490
Reaction score
1,029
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Such a movement is subject to Interdiction. Interdiction is only possible in Open Ground. The same movement would be subject to FFMO. Clearly, the unit isn't in the building at some point. -- jim
Apparently, for the purposes of Building Control, it is considered in the building.
 

PresterJohn

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
612
Location
The Orient
Country
llAustralia
Right,
The rowhouse boys are likely piecemeal running out and immediately back into the building.
The Bypass boys are just running past the building.
I am extremely loath to use "reality" in an ASL rules argument but I am sure you are correct. The "wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey" nature of phases and interactivity in a turn allows for the narrative of what happened to be somewhat sort of realistic. And trained soldiers taking a period of time to move in small bursts to cover gaps in terrain is probably reasonable/realistic.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,719
Reaction score
3,383
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
I remember General Patton’s standing orders to never leave an unsecured row house.
 

PresterJohn

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
612
Location
The Orient
Country
llAustralia
Such a movement is subject to Interdiction. Interdiction is only possible in Open Ground. The same movement would be subject to FFMO. Clearly, the unit isn't in the building at some point. -- jim
Actually interdiction is possible in Open Ground hexes as per A10.53 and Rowhouse hexes as per B23.71. Obviously what you are saying isn't correct as per the rules cited.

A similar statement can be made for FFMO.
 

PresterJohn

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
612
Location
The Orient
Country
llAustralia
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.



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
Okay so we're down to considering Planck time rather than the notional minimum game time of a MF expenditure. However even with Planck time the MMC counter is at no point considered to be halfway between hexes. The counter must be in a hex at any point in time. Given that there is no time gap (however small) for movement between hexes to register on the board, is there a time gap for moving between locations in a hex? How do you tell? It has to be inferred from and dependant on MF expenditure because there is no other gauge for the passing of time/actions, not even Planck time. Can you propose another gauge for determining the passing of time to allow a transition of state from being "in the building" to the state of being "out of the building"? Alternatively the states are simultaneous until resolved. These are the two fundamental choices except where there are rules that otherwise describe what is going on. You say that in some brief amount of (Planck) time the counter was out of the building in one hex and not in the building in the adjacent hex. I say that the rules do not allow for this. Instead the rules acknowledge the state before the MF is spent and then after the MF is spent, and also that MF are spent in discrete units and fractions of units.

I do not see this ambiguous third state you are trying to imply exists and that needs clarification. In fact it seems to me that to "clarify" the presence of Planck time in ASL actions would complicate things tremendously.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,942
Reaction score
7,426
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Not commenting on Rowhouse Control....but...
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,..
...it would be very strange if this was possible, considered the fire vs the vertex is in another the hex than the building hex move into...not sure one can move a unit back one hex and fire at it after it has entered another hex.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,517
Reaction score
5,374
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Actually interdiction is possible in Open Ground hexes as per A10.53 and Rowhouse hexes as per B23.71. Obviously what you are saying isn't correct as per the rules cited.

A similar statement can be made for FFMO.
The definition of Interdiction requires movement in Open Ground. B23.71 says Interdiction is possible because the unit is moving through Open Ground. If the unit is moving through Open Ground guess where it isn't at? -- jim
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,517
Reaction score
5,374
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
You say that in some brief amount of (Planck) time the counter was out of the building in one hex and not in the building in the adjacent hex. I say that the rules do not allow for this. Instead the rules acknowledge the state before the MF is spent and then after the MF is spent, and also that MF are spent in discrete units and fractions of units.
This argument argues against your own position. A unit using Bypass spends 3 MF to get from point A to point B. That is the state before and after the movement yet the unit may be shot in the interim at the Vertex. Of course, if you say "No, the shot on the first MF is broken out and is at the Vertex" then you also cede the point as you acknowledge the unit was discretely outside the Building at some point.

Again, the fact that a unit moving from one Building Location to another adjacent Accessible building Location can be attacked by a Minefield is proof positive the unit is leaving the Building. Now you can attempt reductio ad absurdum with your planck time silliness if you wish, but I never said any such thing. For control to pass, all that is needed is for the one side to occupy the building without the presence of the other in the same building. The rule (A26.11) doesn't care how long this happens, only that it does. It is a binary state. There is no way to square the rules as written with the Q&A. Hence the need for clarification. -- jim
 

PresterJohn

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
612
Location
The Orient
Country
llAustralia
The definition of Interdiction requires movement in Open Ground. B23.71 says Interdiction is possible because the unit is moving through Open Ground. If the unit is moving through Open Ground guess where it isn't at? -- jim
No I don't think so. In A10.3 it clearly refers to an Open Ground hex. Then A10.531 goes on to explain when an Open Ground hex is not an Open Ground hex for interdiction (not part of the logic but it's there). Anyhow an Open Ground hex is one place where interdiction can occur.

Now B23.71 says the following:
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.

There is no mention of Open Ground. In fact I don't think Open Ground is used anywhere in B23.71 or it's examples (eyes are tired). However the rule clearly states that Interdiction occurs under certain conditions.

Also B13.31 says that interdiction can occur in a Woods-road Hex as well, under certain conditions.

I wonder if somewhere in the rules it says specifically that interdiction cannot occur when routing between adjacent buildings due to the open space between the buildings not being Open Ground. It would be nice to tie the two facts together logically, but it's probably a stretch to think the rules would go that far.
 

PresterJohn

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
612
Location
The Orient
Country
llAustralia
This argument argues against your own position. A unit using Bypass spends 3 MF to get from point A to point B. That is the state before and after the movement yet the unit may be shot in the interim at the Vertex. Of course, if you say "No, the shot on the first MF is broken out and is at the Vertex" then you also cede the point as you acknowledge the unit was discretely outside the Building at some point.

Again, the fact that a unit moving from one Building Location to another adjacent Accessible building Location can be attacked by a Minefield is proof positive the unit is leaving the Building. Now you can attempt reductio ad absurdum with your planck time silliness if you wish, but I never said any such thing. For control to pass, all that is needed is for the one side to occupy the building without the presence of the other in the same building. The rule (A26.11) doesn't care how long this happens, only that it does. It is a binary state. There is no way to square the rules as written with the Q&A. Hence the need for clarification. -- jim
No the unit is not shot at "in the interim". The unit makes one move at a cost of 3MF. This has been stated repeatedly. If the move is interrupted the unit may or may not complete it's move depending on the outcome. This also has been stated more than once. A single move may be interrupted under certain conditions regardless of the number of MF used in that single move.

And you did indeed use the term "however briefly" to use your own time measurement silliness. That is what you said. You can read it above again if you wish but "however briefly" is pretty clear in your intention to define some small unit of time to justify that there is a third state of transition between being in one hex or building and being in another hex or building. I do not see any justification for believing in any smaller unit of time than what is described by the expenditure of MFs (whole or fractions).

Now regarding minefields, unless there are special rules (eg buildings) minefield attacks usually occur when a unit crosses a hex-side into a minefield hex, but there are no changes to the attack factors to account for the cost of entering a hex. This is to say you do not get attacked by three times the minefield factor if you spend 3MF to enter a minefield versus the basic minefield attack for a 1 MF entry cost. Surely if what you were saying was true and there was a concept of state of transition, then stomping around for 3 MF to enter a minefield hex is going to be a lot more deadly than a delicate and genteel 1 MF entry. Or perhaps you could propose that the inverse is more correct and the attack factor is devided by the entry cost such that a unit spending 1MF to enter is going to endure more damage. Either way would indicate the existence of a transition state. However that is not what happens and in both cases a simple minefield attack occurs and there is no transition time (however briefly) into the minefield. Now if there was, I would be much more inclined to accept what you are saying.

So I do not see in the rules any reason to justify the existence of a fraction of time "however briefly" that says a unit is anywhere other than in one hex or another when it is moving between those two hexes for a fixed MF cost. I also don't see any reason to extrapolate a time period "however briefly" that it takes for the interruption of that movement by an enemy action to actually occur. The movements and interrupts are discrete events and I don't see the logic for saying that there is some partial state of completeness of a movement/action without special rules. Also I have read somebody else saying that it would be very complex to deal with rules that had to had to account for a partial state of completeness of an action and this seems to be a big can of worms.
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,490
Reaction score
1,029
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Not commenting on Rowhouse Control....but...

...it would be very strange if this was possible, considered the fire vs the vertex is in another the hex than the building hex move into...not sure one can move a unit back one hex and fire at it after it has entered another hex.
Q: Is the 3 MF cost for Rowhouse Bypass considered a simultaneous expenditure? Or does all fire vs. the vertex need to be resolved before any fire against the destination hex occurs? If an Infantry unit is broken/pinned while at the vertex, must it endure all other DFF at that Open Ground point (ala A4.32-.33) before the mechanic of A12.15 returns it to its original Location, where it expends the final 2 MF of its 3 MF move?

UA: Yes and No. You are spending 3 MF, and the only place you can go is into the building Location (or back to your start building), but only 1 MF is spent at the vertex and only 2 MF are spent in the building, and the vertex MF is spent first. Yes. Yes, anyone who wants to shoot at the unit at the vertex on that MF may do so before the unit spends the final 2 MF back in the original building Location.

I may have read the answer to this incorrectly. I read "Yes and No" as answering the first question as "Yes" and the second question as "No". Further review leads me to believe the answer should be "Yes" and "Yes" given the explanation after that.

It may be because I was conflating this sentence in A8.15 regarding Snap Shots " A firer can make only one Snap Shot at a unit crossing a hexside, even if that unit is expending > one MF to enter the hex, but may do so after other (even non-Snap-Shot) attacks."
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,942
Reaction score
7,426
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
The "Yes and No" is actually the answer to the first question. The answer to the second is "Yes".

A4.32-.33, A8.1, A12.15, & B23.71
Is the 3 MF cost for Rowhouse Bypass considered a simultaneous expenditure?
Or does all fire vs. the vertex need to be resolved
before any fire against the destination hex occurs?

A. Yes and No. You are spending 3 MF, and the only place you can go is into the building Location (or back to your start
building), but only 1 MF is spent at the vertex and only 2 MF are spent in the building, and the vertex MF is spent first.
Yes.

Granted, this probably not the best formatting. Since I have started a new version of the Q&A file, I will fix this.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,517
Reaction score
5,374
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
No the unit is not shot at "in the interim". The unit makes one move at a cost of 3MF. This has been stated repeatedly. If the move is interrupted the unit may or may not complete it's move depending on the outcome. This also has been stated more than once. A single move may be interrupted under certain conditions regardless of the number of MF used in that single move.

And you did indeed use the term "however briefly" to use your own time measurement silliness. That is what you said. You can read it above again if you wish but "however briefly" is pretty clear in your intention to define some small unit of time to justify that there is a third state of transition between being in one hex or building and being in another hex or building. I do not see any justification for believing in any smaller unit of time than what is described by the expenditure of MFs (whole or fractions).

Now regarding minefields, unless there are special rules (eg buildings) minefield attacks usually occur when a unit crosses a hex-side into a minefield hex, but there are no changes to the attack factors to account for the cost of entering a hex. This is to say you do not get attacked by three times the minefield factor if you spend 3MF to enter a minefield versus the basic minefield attack for a 1 MF entry cost. Surely if what you were saying was true and there was a concept of state of transition, then stomping around for 3 MF to enter a minefield hex is going to be a lot more deadly than a delicate and genteel 1 MF entry. Or perhaps you could propose that the inverse is more correct and the attack factor is devided by the entry cost such that a unit spending 1MF to enter is going to endure more damage. Either way would indicate the existence of a transition state. However that is not what happens and in both cases a simple minefield attack occurs and there is no transition time (however briefly) into the minefield. Now if there was, I would be much more inclined to accept what you are saying.

So I do not see in the rules any reason to justify the existence of a fraction of time "however briefly" that says a unit is anywhere other than in one hex or another when it is moving between those two hexes for a fixed MF cost. I also don't see any reason to extrapolate a time period "however briefly" that it takes for the interruption of that movement by an enemy action to actually occur. The movements and interrupts are discrete events and I don't see the logic for saying that there is some partial state of completeness of a movement/action without special rules. Also I have read somebody else saying that it would be very complex to deal with rules that had to had to account for a partial state of completeness of an action and this seems to be a big can of worms.
It's clear we will never agree and I am tired of strawmen and red herrings. The humanity of the additional complexity of the control rules in a rule book spanning over 400 pages isn't lost on my either (see, I can use reducto ad absurdium too). -- jim
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,160
Reaction score
1,996
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
It's clear we will never agree and I am tired of strawmen and red herrings. The humanity of the additional complexity of the control rules in a rule book spanning over 400 pages isn't lost on my either (see, I can use reducto ad absurdium too). -- jim
You're not getting off that easy.

I want an illustrated breakdown on The Bishop Says.

And I want it yesterday! 😡
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,889
Reaction score
5,288
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I am extremely loath to use "reality" in an ASL rules argument but I am sure you are correct. The "wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey" nature of phases and interactivity in a turn allows for the narrative of what happened to be somewhat sort of realistic. And trained soldiers taking a period of time to move in small bursts to cover gaps in terrain is probably reasonable/realistic.
Timey-wimey!!??!!! Lmfao The Doctor would be proud of you!!
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,889
Reaction score
5,288
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Captain Bacchus and I had a lengthy session last night pondering this situation. Btw a great thread and thanks to all who have contributed to it.

As we see it the fact that the bypassing units are not in the building is a given, Jim has proven this to our satisfaction. The whole issue comes down to Control which opens a whole new can of worms.

A single HS Controls a multi hex building, say three hexes. Two stacks of three 8-3-8s move into the two unoccupied building hexes. Logically who " controls " the building? Unfortunately logic and the rules don't mesh well at times. This Is one of those times. Regardless the issue of Control cannot really be addressed without impacting a few thousand scenarios.

As gamers and great believers in Mac/Perry Sez we accept his ruling, someone has to make those decisions. I think he's wrong but the feeling probably mutual. 😘 Love ya dude!!
 
Top