VBM Entry on a half hex?

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
2,869
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
It's OG "except for off-map half-hexes which are butted against a half-hex of some
other terrain type." The except means it isn't OG on the unseen part of the hex. Nor does the rule say it is mirrored.
Correct, the last sentence of A2.3 makes it a woods hex. Woods hexes are rarely solid woods, this is half woods with the rest being open ground.051632BA-B691-4848-A0CD-66A1CAB10BCD.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Sean Deller

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
181
Reaction score
127
Location
Waxhaw, NC
Country
llUnited States
It's OG "except for off-map half-hexes which are butted against a half-hex of some
other terrain type." The except means it isn't OG on the unseen part of the hex. Nor does the rule say it is mirrored.
Hi, Larry. No...A2.6 explicitly uses it to enable exiting via bypass. However, it does not mention entry. I suspect this was an oversight.

I recommend that A2.6 be expanded to include entry. It is a simple solution that does not contradict any rules or create other headaches. Using any other bypass-width calculation could result in a situation where a hex can allow either entry or exit, but not the other. That would be weird.
 

apbills

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
403
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Actually, A2.51 specifically states the terrain of an off-board setup map is open ground, EXCEPT for the half-hex. If it were open ground, then A2.3 would apply.

My previous question was regarding the following: Assume that the desert board is off-board.
20679 Assume the tank in K10 uses Reverse Movement to go into bypass of K1:J10 and then stops, now in stationary bypass. CAFP would be J10:K10:K1. Is this tank onboard? What is the difference between that and if it started in J1, and used VBM to K1:J10? What allows/disallows use of this hexside as part of the on-board map? Are there any limitations on the use of this VBM hexside?
 

apbills

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
403
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Hi, Larry. No...A2.6 explicitly uses it to enable exiting via bypass. However, it does not mention entry. I suspect this was an oversight.

I recommend that A2.6 be expanded to include entry. It is a simple solution that does not contradict any rules or create other headaches. Using any other bypass-width calculation could result in a situation where a hex can allow either entry or exit, but not the other. That would be weird.
The example in A2.6 is not stating the same situation as we are talking about. " A squad in X1 wishing to exit the mapboard directly through X0 can use Bypass (one MF) to reach vertex X0-W1-(non-existent)W0 from where it can expend the required one excess MF to exit the mapboard in Open Ground through the mirror image of W1. " this would correlate to a unit in J19 using bypass in J20 along the J20:M20 hexside and then using its extra 1 MF to move into M21.

Using the A2.6 example, it would be "a squad in X1 wishing to exit the mapboard directly through X0 can use Bypass (one MF) to reach vertex X0-(non-existent)W0-(non-existent)X(-1) from where it can expend the required one excess MF to exit the mapboard in Open Ground through the mirror image of X1."
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
2,869
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Actually, A2.51 specifically states the terrain of an off-board setup map is open ground, EXCEPT for the half-hex. If it were open ground, then A2.3 would apply.

My previous question was regarding the following: Assume that the desert board is off-board.
View attachment 20679 Assume the tank in K10 uses Reverse Movement to go into bypass of K1:J10 and then stops, now in stationary bypass. CAFP would be J10:K10:K1. Is this tank onboard? What is the difference between that and if it started in J1, and used VBM to K1:J10? What allows/disallows use of this hexside as part of the on-board map? Are there any limitations on the use of this VBM hexside?
First question: yes ‘onboard’
Second question: yes ‘onboard’
Third question: ????? What ????
Forth question: yes limitations expressed in the rules.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
2,869
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Actually, A2.51 specifically states the terrain of an off-board setup map is open ground, EXCEPT for the half-hex. If it were open ground, then A2.3 would apply.

My previous question was regarding the following: Assume that the desert board is off-board.
View attachment 20679 Assume the tank in K10 uses Reverse Movement to go into bypass of K1:J10 and then stops, now in stationary bypass. CAFP would be J10:K10:K1. Is this tank onboard? What is the difference between that and if it started in J1, and used VBM to K1:J10? What allows/disallows use of this hexside as part of the on-board map? Are there any limitations on the use of this VBM hexside?
There is lots of ‘open ground’ in woods hexes. A woods hex could have a tiny dot of green, a vast majority of open ground, and still be a ‘woods hex’.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
2,869
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Actually, A2.51 specifically states the terrain of an off-board setup map is open ground, EXCEPT for the half-hex. If it were open ground, then A2.3 would apply.

My previous question was regarding the following: Assume that the desert board is off-board.
View attachment 20679 Assume the tank in K10 uses Reverse Movement to go into bypass of K1:J10 and then stops, now in stationary bypass. CAFP would be J10:K10:K1. Is this tank onboard? What is the difference between that and if it started in J1, and used VBM to K1:J10? What allows/disallows use of this hexside as part of the on-board map? Are there any limitations on the use of this VBM hexside?
“What allows/disallows use of this hexside as part of the on-board map? “
The hexside in question is obviously off map. The vertex in question is on the map. There is a clear intersection of hex side lines to creat a vertex and trace a LOS to. Units move from point to point, not on hexsides {except for the exceptions which block movement (I don’t see any) of course: Wrecks, other vehicles, blazes, road blocks etc...}
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
2,869
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
One can prove the vertex exists onboard. A AFV could park (assuming bypassable) on the L10/M10 hexside facing M11. This proves the vertex exists so it could be approached from the other direction, the L10/M11 hexside facing M10.
Also one could prove it exists by simply looking at it.
 

apbills

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
403
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Do not dispute that the vertex is part of the on-board map. When two views are in play it is best to figure out why they are so different, hence my questions.

It is clear now. I have always read the rules for VBM as the vehicle is on the hexside and that the CAFP is only used to provide a concrete point to trace LOS. Maybe this comes from the vehicle hindrance rules that allow for hindrance as long as the LOS crosses any point of the hexside, maybe it is the way a hexside is blocked from movement if another vehicle is already on that hexside. Doesn't matter how that interpretation came about.

What I am reading here is the view that the vehicle moves from vertex to vertex, with the hexside kind of immaterial in the end, other than needing the space to allow the move. I can understand how this would change the possibilities, for instance, you could setup a vehicle on-board, in bypass, at that single CAFP even though the counter is off-board. Not that it matters for most scenarios, but for exit victory conditions, it may be beneficial to be setup in VBM behind an obstacle, but with VCA covering an exit area.

I think of VBM as a hexside , i.e., a "Line" vs a "Point" similar to how a hex is an "Area" but you trace LOS to a "point".

Regardless, I will be interested in how Perry answers Bret's questions.
 
Last edited:

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
4,681
Reaction score
964
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
I think that the problem is conflating CAFP with the location of the vehicle. Clearly TCA is measured from the CAFP. But the barrier to VBM is not to occupy the same CAFP but the same hexside. D2.31:

VBM is not allowed along a hexside already containing another Bypass vehicle/wreck
along that hexside.
In AP's example, could two vehicles share the CAFP at J10-K10-K1, one at the J10-K10 hexside and one that the J10-K1 hexside? D2.31 says, "yes." But two vehicles cannot share the same hexside with different CAFP. The unit is on the hexside even if LOS/LOF is measured from the CAFP -- if D2.31 applies as written.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
2,869
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
I think that the problem is conflating CAFP with the location of the vehicle. Clearly TCA is measured from the CAFP. But the barrier to VBM is not to occupy the same CAFP but the same hexside. D2.31:



In AP's example, could two vehicles share the CAFP at J10-K10-K1, one at the J10-K10 hexside and one that the J10-K1 hexside? D2.31 says, "yes." But two vehicles cannot share the same hexside with different CAFP. The unit is on the hexside even if LOS/LOF is measured from the CAFP -- if D2.31 applies as written.
Philosophical observation: some folks look at the rules like a lawyer and some look at it like an engineer. The lawyers look for ways for something to not work while an engineer wants to fix it and make it work. A combo is probably best. I’m on the engineer side, are you a lawyer ? Lol
 

Ric of The LBC

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
1,522
Location
Peoples Republic of California
Country
llUnited States
Philosophical observation: some folks look at the rules like a lawyer and some look at it like an engineer. The lawyers look for ways for something to not work while an engineer wants to fix it and make it work. A combo is probably best. I’m on the engineer side, are you a lawyer ? Lol
The Architect in me wants to make the graphics better and add notations.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,099
Reaction score
939
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Philosophical observation: some folks look at the rules like a lawyer and some look at it like an engineer. The lawyers look for ways for something to not work while an engineer wants to fix it and make it work. A combo is probably best. I’m on the engineer side, are you a lawyer ? Lol
I'm a lawyer and I agree with Larry!
As I noted in an earlier post, there is precedent in the rules for saying that a vertex is not enough per se to allow a unit in bypass to be considered to occupy the hex/hexside of which the vertex forms part.

C.5B FIRE WITHIN CA: A firer that must fire within a given CA must have the hex containing the target completely within its CA— merely having the vertex (or hexside) aiming point forming a part of the boundary of its CA is insufficient.

If a CAFP on a vertex is not enough in itself to bring a vehicle into an enemy unit's CA, how can it take a vehicle from being offboard to onboard?
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
2,869
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
I'm a lawyer and I agree with Larry!
As I noted in an earlier post, there is precedent in the rules for saying that a vertex is not enough per se to allow a unit in bypass to be considered to occupy the hex/hexside of which the vertex forms part.

C.5B FIRE WITHIN CA: A firer that must fire within a given CA must have the hex containing the target completely within its CA— merely having the vertex (or hexside) aiming point forming a part of the boundary of its CA is insufficient.

If a CAFP on a vertex is not enough in itself to bring a vehicle into an enemy unit's CA, how can it take a vehicle from being offboard to onboard?
I knew it, lol.

Philosophical observation:
Lawyers follow the rules of man
Engineers follow the rules of nature.
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
4,681
Reaction score
964
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
Philosophical observation: some folks look at the rules like a lawyer and some look at it like an engineer. The lawyers look for ways for something to not work while an engineer wants to fix it and make it work. A combo is probably best. I’m on the engineer side, are you a lawyer ? Lol
I don't think that you understand what lawyers actually do. Engineers and lawyers both look for problems and solutions. This is a language and logic problem. I offered the solution to fix it - the unit is on the hexside and LOS is measured from the CAFP. That is a rules-based solution.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
2,869
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
I don't think that you understand what lawyers actually do. Engineers and lawyers both look for problems and solutions. This is a language and logic problem. I offered the solution to fix it - the unit is on the hexside and LOS is measured from the CAFP. That is a rules-based solution.
Thanks for the heads up, I’ll try to figure out what lawyers do.
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
4,681
Reaction score
964
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
I'm a lawyer and I agree with Larry!
solicitor or barrister?

Had an interesting conversation with a friend about the phrase attorney at law. I had to explain that the phrase related to the old system in which law and equity courts were separate but now merged. Antiquated phrase.
 
Top