VBM question

Discussion in 'ASL Rules & Errata' started by clubby, Dec 21, 2016.

  1. clubby

    clubby Active Member

    Dec 27, 2015
    CA
    Does the hedge in F8 poking into G8 block Vehicle Bypass for an Armored Car around the building in G8? Thanks.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Binchois

    Binchois Too many words... Silver Supporting Member

    667
    Apr 11, 2016
    Michigan
    It doesn't look like the hedge creates any problem.

    By the directions of D2.3, a wall/hedge is considered an extension of the hexside, while the clearence measurement (with the side of a spare counter) must be clear between the hexside and obstacle:

    D2.3 Therefore, the interior of each hexside traversed must be clear of any obstacle depiction to the depth of an edge of a unit counter for VBM to be usable. Hold a unit counter vertically so that the entire thickness of the hexside is just visible along the edge - if the other edge touches any obstacle depiction, VBM is not allowed along that hexside. Wall/hedges are considered extensions of hexsides for this rule.
    So long as the counter's edge fits between the hedge and the building, the AC can make it through!
     
    Honosbinda likes this.
  3. clubby

    clubby Active Member

    Dec 27, 2015
    CA
    Thanks. That's what I thought but it was presented to me as blocked.
     
  4. Binchois

    Binchois Too many words... Silver Supporting Member

    667
    Apr 11, 2016
    Michigan
    One weird and probably ill-considered thought...Imagine a situation where there is not enough room for Vehicular Bypass, but where there would be enough room for bypass if a hedge wasn't there (like the OP example with the building and hedge drawn even closer to each other). I wonder why the RB doesn't allow bypass for vehicles if they expend MPs for "crossing" the hedge (and possibly a bog check)?

    Indeed, in such a modified version of the OP example, it would seem more natural to consider the bypassable hexsides of G8 to be clear and to consider the hedge an extension of just the F7/F8 hexside into G8. In other words, the only effect of the hedge on bypass would be to force the bypassing unit (trying to get from G7 to G9) to pay MPs for crossing the hedge.

    ...My apologies in advance for messing around with what the RB doesn't say! :readit:
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2016
  5. Honosbinda

    Honosbinda Member

    239
    Mar 15, 2014
    Eastbourne Sussex UK
    I was once taken to task at a tournament for enforcing this rule against a top-tier player. I was told 'nobody plays with this clearance rule!' Had to get the tourney director involved and even he wavered before agreeing with me.

    Actually this is a horrible rule to deal with in tournaments, nobody can easily tell if the counter-width clearance is met or not in some cases. Worse, some of the VASL maps don't agree precisely with real maps, if trying to apply it... ouch:( But there is probably no chance they will come up with something better.
     
  6. mgmasl

    mgmasl Active Member

    Feb 26, 2006
    Cadiz
    Does a vehicle in bypass block the vertex and so the two contiguous hexsides?
     
  7. mgmasl

    mgmasl Active Member

    Feb 26, 2006
    Cadiz
    Or only the one occupied?
     
  8. von Marwitz

    von Marwitz Well-Known Member

    Nov 25, 2010
    Kraut Corner
    I do not see where this rule is horrible to deal with, be it at tournaments or elsewhere.

    If a LOS is difficult to determine even when stringing it, no one would come to the conclusion that the terrain of maps should be designed in a way to prevent this or to question the LOS rules. No tool, be it a 'laser-los' (have seen that - impractical), special white extra-thin thread can resolve every situation. If you can't agree with your opponent, whether LOS exists or not, you do stick to the rule and roll a die to resolve the issue within the rule if all else fails.

    In case of VBM, you stick to the clearance rule and enforce it as you would enforce the rule to determine LOS (as you rightly did). You and your opponent should be able to agree on what a 'standard' counter for checking clearance is. The obvious choice is the vehicle counter which is being moved (or draw one the contesting 'standard' ones at random...). If you don't like to use a counter, the ingeniuety of the ASL community has come up with those little wooden chips with a little slit in the middle that has exactly the width of a 'standard' counter (which can be double-checked by pushing any counter through the slit...). Such a gadget would allow you to 'see' the clearance rather than covering it with a counter. Well, and if your oppo is still bitching, roll a die. Issue settled.

    Now the VASL maps and the real maps. They are not exactly alike. So what?
    The game has even been played with horribly 'imprecise' mounted mapboards for decades.
    The key is that you need to accept the map which you are using in the ongoing game. Issue settled.

    In case of VASL, you need to make sure, each player is using the same version (I believe VASL now does download the latest version automatically, so the issue should be solved in that regard). The only conceivable issues I can think up for FtF play is if you prepare a setup at home on a different map than the one you are playing on later in case of Bore Sighted locations. Better check on the map which you are playing on. A memorized LOS is different on the set you own than on the one which you use for the FtF game? Tough luck.
    If maps butted together shift a little, determine LOS as you play. Whatever the result, this will be what will be in effect for the rest of that game. In case no agreement can be reached, roll the die. If you are concerned because of possibly shifting maps after Bore Sighting as part of your setup in absence of your opponent, get a third person to align the maps, determine the LOS and write it on a slip of paper. Basically, it is irrelevant if all map sets aren't identical. The one you use for the game - and only that one - is the one that counts. Issue settled.

    Bottom line is this:
    The problem lies neither with the rules, the mechanics and tools of determining LOS or clearance, nor the individual nature of the boards. The problem lies solely with people unable or unwilling to work with these.

    If my opponent is unwilling to play by the rules of the game - which is the basis of any gameplay and which are gladly quite clear in this context - then he might just need to find another person next time who goes along with such capers. If my opponent draws me into fruitless discussions about 'precision-thread', 'precision-dice', 'precision-boards', 'precision-counters' instead of getting on with the game, I might precisely determine that I won't waste my time with him in the future.

    von Marwitz
     
    General Mayhem likes this.
  9. klasmalmstrom

    klasmalmstrom Well-Known Member

    Feb 26, 2003
    Sweden
    Yes.

    Q&A:
    D2.31
    D2.31 says : “... VBM is not allowed along a hexside already containing another Bypass vehicle/wreck along that hexside.” Can a vehicle bypass a hexside, one of the vertices of which belongs to another hexside which contains another Bypass vehicle/wreck?
    A. Yes.
     
  10. Philippe D.

    Philippe D. Active Member

    563
    Jul 1, 2016
    Bordeaux
    I think the problem is a bit more complex than that. Checking VBM admissibility is more complex than checking LOS or just infantry bypass, and with often cluttered maps, it's really not a very practical thing to do, IMHO. Not to mention VASL - I heard there's a tool for VBM checking, I don't know how to find it though.

    I know the difference in the rules between infantry bypass and VBM, and yet I haven't applied this rule in a very long time. I won't throw a fit if my opponent insists on it, but it has yet to happen to me.

    (Checking whether one sees obstacle artwork on both sides of the thread is also much easier than checking whether a counter, positioned just so, touches obstacle artwork)
     
  11. von Marwitz

    von Marwitz Well-Known Member

    Nov 25, 2010
    Kraut Corner
    I do not think that this claim can be substantiated.

    First of all, to figure out VBM, all you have to do is to look at a single hexside. Even in the most cluttered games, this involves less fuss than checking LOS which is oftentimes required over longer distances bringing with it the need to potentially move many more units. Then, LOS checks are much more frequent than VBM-clearance checks. Yet you do not doubt the concept of LOS checks nor plead for a change of LOS rules or terrain depictions eliminating questionable LOS. For good reason as the latter would likely impossible nor add to the game - on the contrary. IMHO the same is true for unambiguous VBM paths.

    You can be helped. It can be found at the most obivous place - the vasl.info site with all the other extensions:
    http://vasl.info/extensions.htm

    The extension:
    http://vasl.info/extensions/5VBM.mdx

    I have pointed out a solution for you if you perceive this as a problem:
    A chip of wood with a slit cut into it of the width of a counter. With the new forum screwing up the old picture database, I can't provide you with a depiction. You could also make a most simple version with a piece of paper and an exacto knife.

    von Marwitz
     
  12. MajorDomo

    MajorDomo DM? Chuck H2O in his face

    Sep 1, 2003
    Fluid
    I had a wooden tool for checking VBM, given to me by Steve Pleva at Albany.

    Works just fine, except I lent it to George and have yet to retrieve it.

    Rich
     
  13. sdennis

    sdennis Active Member

    887
    Jan 14, 2005
    Wixom, Michigan
    You guys are killing me... I don't think I have EVER pulled out a counter to check VBM. If it's close I usually ask my opponent, what do you think is that bypassable? If they have any qualms I say no...

    Way too much importance put on a game by some of us...

    And yes even in a tournament I would play this way...

    Maybe that's why I never win any tournaments...
     
    Eagle4ty likes this.
  14. Mister T

    Mister T Active Member Silver Supporting Member

    Aug 12, 2006
    Bruxelles
    Checking vbm clearance is a healthy countermeasure to sleaze freeze. And its principle is identical to LOS checks. Weird to see that some players are genuinely indignated when one tries to play by the rule.
     
    Honosbinda likes this.
  15. jrv

    jrv Vare, legiones redde!

    May 25, 2005
    Teutoburger Wald
    I usually try to point out to my opponent that a hexside is likely (or definitely) not bypassable by a vehicle when I think he is about to make such a move. That alerts him that I enforce the rule while giving him a chance to back out.

    The Steve Pleva bypass clearance tool is nice if you have one, but they are relatively difficult to build. I made a different gauge with the same purpose. I took some clear plastic from a clamshell package, cut a flat piece of it out, cut a straight line along one edge, scribed a line one counter thickness parallel to the straight line using a pin, then cut about a thumb-sized piece. To use it I put the cut edge on the hexside and look through the clear plastic to see if the obstacle touches the scribed line. This diy clearance gauge is just about free, and is about as easy to use as a LOS thread. The only problem with it is that if you leave it totally clear, it will "disappear" on a board. I fixed this by gluing some colored paper on it.

    JR
     
  16. Brian W

    Brian W Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 2003
    USA
    I find the VB check far more logical and intuitive than a LOS check. When driving a car, I sometimes misjudge space and end up in reverse. When checking to see if I can see something, my eyes either confirm it or don't; I don't have to take a couple of rifle shots to tell if I can see it or not.
     
  17. jrv

    jrv Vare, legiones redde!

    May 25, 2005
    Teutoburger Wald
    I think the rationalization given for taking a shot only to discover that the LOS is blocked is that the firing unit had a brief glance at the unit but not long enough to put down effective fire. Although LOS is traced to a specific spot, in reality the represented unit may be spread out over a wider area and even moving about within that area. Tracing LOS to a hex center (or whatever) is not a model but a game effect.

    JR
     
  18. sdennis

    sdennis Active Member

    887
    Jan 14, 2005
    Wixom, Michigan
    That is what I do too JR, just don't see the need for a tool or pulling a counter 99.99999% of the time... to me if it's coming down to a pixel and you want to say yes or no I'll let you decide yes or no...

    In the paraphrased iconic words of Russ back in the day, JUST PLAY! That's all I want to do is just play man!
     
  19. jrv

    jrv Vare, legiones redde!

    May 25, 2005
    Teutoburger Wald
    Bypass with vehicles is actually a lot more difficult than most people think. For that reason having a gauge is useful. The gauge eliminates time wasted discussing the issue. If you enforce the rule as if infantry bypass (i.e. the obstacle has to touch the hexside), then you don't have an issue. If you try to follow the rule as written, having a gauge will avoid most disagreements.

    JR
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2016
  20. Russ Isaia

    Russ Isaia Member Silver Supporting Member

    292
    Oct 23, 2015
    Sorry to drag everyone back to the OP, but I want to be sure I understood Binchois' initial observation. Had the hedge on the hexside between F7 and F8 extended far enough into G8, it could block bypass of the building in G8. In effect, when the RB says a hedge (or wall) is an extension of a hexside, it means an extension in four directions. Or did I misunderstand Binchois?
     

Share This Page