wall and hedge LOS example

trailrunner

Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
58
Reaction score
18
Location
northern Virginia
Country
llUnited States
At the end of section B9.2, there is an example for wall and hedge LOS. I understand the example and the rules that support it. However, I'm trying to get a little intuition into the situation in the very last sentence. Why, from a common sense situation, would the hedge along Y8-Z8 block LOS only if the hedge along Y9-Z8 was not there? Again, I understand the rules, but it seems to me that by itself, the hedge along Y8-Z8 would block LOS because half of their vision is blocked, and adding the hedge along Y9-Z8 would just make it worse by adding more stuff to get in the way. Why does adding the Y9-Z8 hedge clear the LOS?
 
Last edited:

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
892
Reaction score
181
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
At the end of section B9.2, there is an example for wall and hedge LOS. I understand the example and the rules that support it. However, I'm trying to get a little intuition into the situation in the very last sentence. Why, from a common sense situation, would the hedge along Y8-Z8 block LOS only if the hedge along Y9-Z8 was not there? Again, I understand the rules, but it seems to me that by itself, the hedge along Y8-Z9 would block LOS because half of their vision is blocked, and adding the hedge along Y9-Z8 would just make it worse by adding more stuff to get in the way. Why does adding the Y9-Z8 hedge clear the LOS?
I try to find intuitive rationales for every rule I can -- it makes them much easier to remember -- but to me walls/hedges is case where "common sense" only gets in the way. Common sense says walls don't come in hexagonal segments of uniform thickness and height. You've really got to let the rules be rules on this one and learn quirks. Just my opinion, but the rule you are discussing will break your mind if you try to make it 'make sense.' It exists so as to make a clear ruling on how sighting across three walls that converge at a vertex works. That's the whole of it (imo).
 
Last edited:

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,581
Reaction score
531
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Why does adding the Y9-Z8 hedge clear the LOS?
Because the target is "next" to the wall/hedge. All the wall/hedge rules say you have no LOS when neither side is "next" to the wall/hedge. When fire is traced though the graphic of the wall/hedge, but the target is "next" to the wall/hedge, you can fire at them with TEM. When fire is traced through the wall/hedge but no one is "next" to the wall/hedge, there is no LOS.
 

trailrunner

Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
58
Reaction score
18
Location
northern Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Because the target is "next" to the wall/hedge. All the wall/hedge rules say you have no LOS when neither side is "next" to the wall/hedge. When fire is traced though the graphic of the wall/hedge, but the target is "next" to the wall/hedge, you can fire at them with TEM. When fire is traced through the wall/hedge but no one is "next" to the wall/hedge, there is no LOS.
As I said, I understand the rule and how it was implemented in the example. Now I am looking for the why. I'm imagining I'm standing in the hex and shooting at the German unit. There's a hedge to my right (Y8-Z8), blocking part my view, and my LOS is blocked. Plausible. Got it. But if I add more hedge (Y9-Z8), then my LOS becomes clear, just because this hedge touches my hex. I don't understand how adding more hedge between me and the target could in any way help me to see better.

It's probably something simple, but I'm not grasping it. I think Pyth's explanation might make the most sense
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,581
Reaction score
531
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
As I said, I understand the rule and how it was implemented in the example. Now I am looking for the why. I'm imagining I'm standing in the hex and shooting at the German unit. There's a hedge to my right (Y8-Z8), blocking part my view, and my LOS is blocked. Plausible. Got it. But if I add more hedge (Y9-Z8), then my LOS becomes clear, just because this hedge touches my hex. I don't understand how adding more hedge between me and the target could in any way help me to see better.

It's probably something simple, but I'm not grasping it. I think Pyth's explanation might make the most sense
I think you're misreading the example. Unless I'm looking at the wrong example, there is never more hedge. There is just a rotation in the example.
(edit) that is to say, there is never a case when you get a clear LOS when you're not "next" to a hedge. So I think that's the why you're looking for. If you drop down the hedge orientations in VASL, I think it'll be clear(er).
(edit2) on further consideration, I think what you're calling more hedge and what I mean by being "next" to a hedge are really the same thing.
Taking that board, what I see when I intuit the hedges is more along the red lines. When you add "more" hedge, you're really just shifting what would be a straight hedge so that the hex is question is now "next" to the hedge.

At least that's how I see it, YMMV.


10335 10336
 
Last edited:

trailrunner

Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
58
Reaction score
18
Location
northern Virginia
Country
llUnited States
The same section of hedge that blocks LOS in the first image is there in the second image, yet LOS is now clear because there is more hedge, some of which happens to be adjacent to me. That’s what I’m not feeling understanding.

I’m sure I’m missing something simple.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
16,013
Reaction score
1,830
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
EX: In the 9.1 illustration, the 4-4-7 in 6Z9 can attack the 8-3-8 in X6 with a +2 DRM for the wall because both intervening wall/hedge hexspines are part of either the firing or target hex and neither of them has three wall/hedge hexspines on the vertex that is part of neither Z9 nor X6. If Y8-Y9 were a hedge hexside, no LOS would exist since the Y8-Y9-Z8 vertex would have wall/hedge hexsides on all three hexspines. If a German unit were in Y8, both it and the 4-4-7 would qualify for the +1 TEM of the Z8-Y9 hexspine when firing at each other. If the Z8-Y9 hedge did not exist (or were instead at Y8-Y9), the LOS from Z9 to X6 would be blocked at the Y8-Y9-Z8 vertex.

Is this the example?
The reason for the hedge on Z8/Y9 allowing LOS is you get LOS along the hedge, if not there but the Z8/Y8 was then the vertex Z8/Y8/Y9 would be a hedge vertex and thus block LOS. The rules allow los along the hedge and this is an effect of the rule on that. Pure gamesmanship I'm afriad.
 

trailrunner

Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
58
Reaction score
18
Location
northern Virginia
Country
llUnited States
The hedge is closer, there isn’t more of it.
Yes there is more hedge when the LOS is clear. In the first image you posted, there are 4 hexsides with hedges (only two of which are relevant to this discussion), but LOS is clear. In the second image you posted, there are 3 hexsides with hedges (only one of which is relevant to this discussion), but LOS is blocked.
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
892
Reaction score
181
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
I'm really not convinced we're all talking about the same thing here. (yes Vinnie that is the example under discussion as I understand it). The illustration below is the rule that is being clarified... at least that's what I think is going on... maybe I'll learn something new...

In the illustration -- Three walls meeting at a common vertex circled below... The red circle represents a blocked LOS between the german in FF5 and the Brit in DD8. The blue circled set of walls do not block LOS and there is LOS between AA8 and CC5.
10343
There is a case where the addition of a wall magically creates a LOS where there was none previously, this is the case the OP was talking about as I understand it:

Imagine there are no walls at all along any hexsides common to EE6 FF6 EE7... los would be obviously clear. Now we add walls, one at a time:
EE7/EE6.... LOS blocked.... just that 'half' wall blocks the vertex along the LOS. (Of course it would be the same if only the FF6/EE7 were the wall section added.)

Ok... so now there is one wall section only at EE7/EE6 hexside and LOS is blocked... now we add back the EE6/FF6 wall along the hexspine of the LOS and zap there is LOS. But add the third wall at EE7/FF6 and bap, LOS goes back to blocked. In my opinion this makes for consistent playable rules around wall LOS, and they have nothing to do with common sense -- LOS regarding these particular wall situations could be treated elsewise with equal commonsense -- but some rule however arbitrary must be consistently applied.
 
Last edited:

trailrunner

Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
58
Reaction score
18
Location
northern Virginia
Country
llUnited States
There is a case where the addition of a wall magically creates a LOS where there was none previously, this is the case the OP was talking about as I understand it:

Imagine there are no walls at all along any hexsides common to EE6 FF6 EE7... los would be obviously clear. Now we add walls, one at a time:
EE7/EE6.... LOS blocked.... just that 'half' wall blocks the vertex along the LOS. (Of course it would be the same if only the FF6/EE7 were the wall section added.)

Ok... so now there is one wall section only at EE7/EE6 hexside and LOS is blocked... now we add back the EE6/FF6 wall along the hexspine of the LOS and zap there is LOS. But add the third wall at EE7/FF6 and bap, LOS goes back to blocked. In my opinion this makes for consistent playable rules around wall LOS, and they have nothing to do with common sense -- LOS regarding these particular wall situations could be treated elsewise with equal commonsense -- but some rule however arbitrary must be consistently applied.
Yes, this is the situation that I am asking about. Add a wall = gain LOS.

If the explanation is "this was the best way we could write the rule balancing simplicity and realism, and this is just one of those quirks that defies physics," then I'll move on and not worry about it any more.
 
Top