AdrianE said:
WaterRabbit
Logical arguments don't apply to ASL either.
I disagree. Exceptions do not prove the rule. The ASLRB for the most part is based upon its own internally consistent logic. The exceptions are mainly due to the different styles of Greenwood, MacNamera, Fortenberry, and Cocke.
But in the absence of proof to the contrary, your statement is NA. Now if you would like to show me through the rules of the game system where my logic is in error, please do. But flat generalizations are not a counter-argument.
Fact: Hexes are 40m.
Fact: Walls and hedges are 1-2m.
Fact: Walls and hedges are 1/2 level.
Q.E.D: 1 level = 4m (strictly) to 10m (allowing intrepretation).
To counter this show me where it otherwise defines a level in the RB or demonstrate my logic is in error. So far you have given:
Assumption: Realitiy is NA to ASL
Assumption: Logic is NA to ASL
ASL is a model of a certain reality. Reality and logic give way when they colide with fun, gameplay, and the limitations of the model. To say they don't apply in general is a slippery slope. In my mind it is also kind of silly. Why bother with the bulk of the rules if they aren't intended to simulate a certain reality? Heck we could toss out most of the RB if we weren't concerned with modeling the specfics of WWII-style infantry/vehicle actions.
Reality and logic are the basis of the rules and are excepted when necessary (which is quite frequently).