Rowhouse Control - lost by Infiltration?

[Sparafucil3]

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!!

Assume building EE8 is a Factory. As depicted, if the 6-6-6 shoots at the 4-6-7, the TEM is +1. Assume instead the 4-6-7 is in EE7. Now, if the 6-6-6 were to shoot at the 4-6-7, the TEM would be +2. Why is that? Because the LOF leaves the Factory depiction (is not "completely through the same building", A23.741). Yet we are to believe a unit making the same move would remain IN the building.

ASL has its own logic and its own reality but it is rarely, if ever, internally inconsistent. -- jim

 

[BattleSchool]

Already did that. Link above. -- jim

No, no, no... not building Control,

an article dedicated to rowhouses, what the rules tell us, what they don't, and why.

 

[PresterJohn]

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

Would that be straw minefields or minefields of herring (does it have to be red?) which you also introduced?
Not that my minefield response was very decisive either, but that would require more thought than I was willing to give it in that briefest of ASL time.
But you're right, adding complexity is not a linear function of the number pages of rules. There is a sliding scale more akin to the number of pages per rule (including examples) and also the number of links that a rule would have to other rules.

 

[PresterJohn]

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.

This is going back a bit, but is the 1MF actually spent at the vertex, or is the vertex abstracted as the aiming point to represent the special 33% highly vulnerable nature of the of 3MF single move?

In other words is the move a special case which can be interrupted before it completes (all 3MF spent), or are there definitely discrete parts to the move and it is not a single 3MF move.

Rearrange those "other words" if necessary.

 

[Stewart]

The unit isn't bypassing the building.
It's considered to "bypass".

Just as a unit doesn't MOVE in the ADV phase nor Rout phase.

 

[Sparafucil3]

No, no, no... not building Control,

an article dedicated to rowhouses, what the rules tell us, what they don't, and why.

No thanks. I will gladly read your summation though. -- jim

 

[klasmalmstrom]

This is going back a bit, but is the 1MF actually spent at the vertex, or is the vertex abstracted as the aiming point to represent the special 33% highly vulnerable nature of the of 3MF single move?

In other words is the move a special case which can be interrupted before it completes (all 3MF spent), or are there definitely discrete parts to the move and it is not a single 3MF move.

Per the Q&A it is a "combined" expenditure, but it is kind of broken up in two "parts". For 1 MF the unit can be targeted drawing a LOS to the vertex (and the unit is still considered to be in the starting hex), but once there you can only continue to move into the building. The move itself is declared completely, as in: "the 4-6-7 is moving into this hex, "bypassing" at this vertex.

 

[PresterJohn]

Per the Q&A it is a "combined" expenditure, but it is kind of broken up in two "parts". For 1 MF the unit can be targeted drawing a LOS to the vertex (and the unit is still considered to be in the starting hex), but once there you can only continue to move into the building. The move itself is declared completely, as in: "the 4-6-7 is moving into this hex, "bypassing" at this vertex.

Okay, I'll put words in your "kind of" and read it as part of the abstraction (including the "bypass" term) that I see in the digital nature of the rules (digital is having discrete values), whereas I'm certain others want to interpret the rules in an analogue manner. Thank you.

 

[Gordon]

Is "kind of" in the index?

 

[BattleSchool]

Okay, I'll take a stab at this.

The only thing(s) A26.11 tells us explicitly is how Control is gained, namely by "occupying" the building. Is says almost nothing about how Control is lost, except that it is gained "without the presence of an armed enemy ground unit." The specific actions that cause forfeiture are not elaborated on, let alone listed. That said, the rule is quite clear in telling us that Control cannot be gained via Bypass. This is an important caveat that I'll return to later.

Hands up if you think we need a Control Loss/Gain Table?

I think it's important to understand what "occupying" means in the context of forfeiture. For example, is a unit using rowhouse "bypass" considered to be "occupying" the building while moving to a new rowhouse hex? The Q&A implies as much, but the rules don't necessarily support this.

I nevertheless believe that a unit using rowhouse "bypass" does continue to "occupy" the building, even while spending a MF at the vertex outside the building. Arguably, the situation is similar to where a unit claiming WA continues to occupy a building even though it is considered to be in Open Ground to fire that does not cross a wall/hedge hexside. For the latter to occur, the unit must be outside the building, no?

Or how about when a unit in a building fires a BAZ as Opportunity Fire? Does the unit forfeit Control "due to the movement which is assumed necessary to move into an alley prior to the shot?" The way A26.11 is currently written, one could make a case that the BAZ team is not occupying the building while the shot is taken, and therefore forfeits Control. Who's to say that moving to the alley, aiming and firing the BAZ, and then returning to the building takes less time than moving from one rowhouse hex to another, or the time it takes to sprint across a gap between two wings of the same building?

I suspect that in all these cases, Control is not forfeited, because in all cases the unit is considered, like a unit claiming WA, to occupy the building contemporaneously.

Bypass proper is a different beast. A unit using Bypass (A4.3) is not in an obstacle and therefore cannot occupy a building as it moves from one building hex to another. This is quite different from the rowhouse example where a unit doesn't actually capital "B" Bypass the rowhouse (obstacle) along one or more hexsides.

 

[PresterJohn]

Does the whole squad have to "leave the building"? Previously I said the whole minefields issue used as some sort of proof of exit was a complete load of kippered fish. Here's the analogue story. A squad declares it is leaving a building hex via a non- building hexside. The first guy starts to move out of a hole in the wall and sees that what he thought were partially buried fish are in fact AP mines HIP in the building hex. Dice are rolled and the squad is now pinned in the building hex. No losses incurred so no mines detonate according to the footnote but there was a minefield attack. Did the squad leave the building, even for some small period of time? Or did one guy stick his head out and then say "no not doing that"?
The "digital" version of the story is a lot simpler.

 

[BattleSchool]

Pop Quiz

During DFF a squad in a rowhouse conducts a CCRF attack vs a Moving enemy AFV in an adjacent road hex. The squad immobilizes the AFV before returning to the rowhouse where the only other unit in the rowhouse is an enemy HS.

Does the HS gain Control of the building?

 

[PresterJohn]

A tangential response via an old Q&A. This may not be useful but the inference is that the Russian squad with the MMG doesn't lose possession of it when rushing out into the street to do their part in the war. There are no MF related penalties (it's not the Russian's movement phase after all) so perhaps all of the squad doesn't go into the street and the machine gunners are still holding the fort. Does the whole squad have to leave the building to conduct the attack? That Q&A may be from an earlier time and not relevant but my guess is that the attack expends no MF and the squad hasn't left the building, unless the squad ends up stuck in the street (with the MMG) as a result of misadventure.

A11.8
For explanation, since VotG isn’t out yet, a “gutted” building costs one extra MF when entering the location. A Russian 458
w/5PP MMG elects to attack an ADJACENT AFV during the MPh with CCRF. It is attacking from a VotG gutted building – at
night – (4MF to return) does the squad return to the building hex?
A. Yes.
or become CX/TI in the process? remain in the street? or can it drop the MMG in the building before advancing into the street? or
drop the MMG in the street before returning to the building?
A. No. No, not voluntarily. No. No.
Would waiting until the Aph (with the prohibition against “voluntarily” remaining in the hex) alter this in any way?
A. In the APh it could drop the MMG in the building before advancing into the street and it could then remain in the street. {4}

 

[BattleSchool]

Me thinks you miss the point.

It's a game abstraction.

Consider the following:
The Germans Control a seedy rowhouse in Berlin. A low-level Nazi functionary has a financial interest in said building and has elected to make a stand. Elsewhere in the obszönes Haus are Reds under the bed, a HS worth according to the latest ASL census. A T-34 rolls up. Taking offence, Herr Loddel steps outside with a Wehrmacht-surplus Panzerfaust. He misses the tank. Annoyed at having lost count of the Reichsmarks in the till, he steps back inside his office to retally the wages of sin.

Have the Reds taken Control of his establishment in the interim?

Nein!

Control is not predicated on some imaginary friend remaining (or lagging) behind, maintaining Control by his presence. It's baked into the game mechanics. For good reason, as the number of "edgy" cases attest.

That said, it's easy enough to test. Submit a Q&A for each contentious case and see what Perry has to say.

Interesting Q&A btw, thanks for sharing.

 

[Fort]

Just change the wording to something like this: Building Control is lost if, at any time, only Infantry units of one side solely occupy (a) hex(es) of the building.

When you do the bypass, or Rowhouse Bypass or non-Building Hex side move, you're still in a Building Hex.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Just change the wording to something like this: Building Control is lost if, at any time, only Infantry units of one side solely occupy (a) hex(es) of the building.

When you do the bypass, or Rowhouse Bypass or non-Building Hex side move, you're still in a Building Hex.

This would certainly reconcile the Q&A with the rules if such a change were made. -- jim

 

[PresterJohn]

Me thinks you miss the point.

It's a game abstraction.

Consider the following:
The Germans Control a seedy rowhouse in Berlin. A low-level Nazi functionary has a financial interest in said building and has elected to make a stand. Elsewhere in the obszönes Haus are Reds under the bed, a HS worth according to the latest ASL census. A T-34 rolls up. Taking offence, Herr Loddel steps outside with a Wehrmacht-surplus Panzerfaust. He misses the tank. Annoyed at having lost count of the Reichsmarks in the till, he steps back inside his office to retally the wages of sin.

Have the Reds taken Control of his establishment in the interim?

Nein!

Control is not predicated on some imaginary friend remaining (or lagging) behind, maintaining Control by his presence. It's baked into the game mechanics. For good reason, as the number of "edgy" cases attest.

That said, it's easy enough to test. Submit a Q&A for each contentious case and see what Perry has to say.

Interesting Q&A btw, thanks for sharing.

The "digital" view is absolutely an abstraction of the process. Only in the analogue view does the detailed series of events even occur, such that one might want to imagine a moment in time where a certain condition exists.

 

[jimfer]

Beam me up Scotty! Too much grey matter at work.

 

[Stewart]

Pop Quiz

During DFF a squad in a rowhouse conducts a CCRF attack vs a Moving enemy AFV in an adjacent road hex. The squad immobilizes the AFV before returning to the rowhouse where the only other unit in the rowhouse is an enemy HS.

Does the HS gain Control of the building?

Yes, There are Movement consequences for entering the ADJ non building hex.

 

[mgmasl]

After reading the full post I don’t think so.
Surely there is a Q&A anywhere… but I’m not able to find it.