[ASLML] Re: Bridge/Gully

[Bruce Bakken]

Hi, Tom.  Good to hear a new voice.  :-)

>>
>>That the rule is not clear about how to handle falling rubble in a hex 
>>containing a bridge-gully.
>** The rule is B24.2 and 24.121... "A combination gully-rubble hex is a LOS 
>obstacle at both...levels" and "bridges remain intact but with a rubble 
>counter on top."  Seems that handling it is as easy as placing 2 rubble 
>counters and a bridge counter (if necessary).
>

Could be, if that's the way you want to play it.  It's not exactly spelled 
out that way.  And a gully-rubble hex is different than a 
bridge-gully-rubble hex.

>>
>>Please explain to me: what is ground level?
>**  neither above (including Aerial) nor below (subterranean).
>
>>   Where is this defined?
>**  In my Random House dictionary, and certainly in other editions as well.
>

Well of course, in English I would not argue what "ground level" means.  But 
ASL uses a different speech code than English does.  There are many examples 
of term usage in ASL meaning something unique to ASL and not necessarily how 
one might think of the term in English.

>>   Can it be argued that a Depression Location is _not_ at ground level?
>**  Not if the Depression is neither Upper Level nor subterranean.
>

The Index for Depression tells us to look at A6.3.  Explain what this means: 
"Certain terrain types are defined as being relatively narrow slits carved 
into the surface below ground level."  Also, Depressions present "no 
obstacle to LOS between units at or above ground level".  In this paragraph, 
"ground level" is clearly referring to something other than the Depression.  
Here, the Depression is _not_ at ground level, it is _below_ ground level.

So what is "ground level" again?  In ASL terms this time, not English.

>>   If so, how can a Depression Location contain falling rubble, if the 
>>rubble counter is placed at "ground level"?  That _is_ what it says, after 
>>all.
>**  How, because the rubble has to stop at ground level - and B24.2 
>specifies that includes "both its Crest and Depression levels."
>

It has to stop at the ground surface, yes.

>
>>   Are you sure?  You cannot gain Crest status if the hex contains a 
>>bridge.  Where is Depression Crest level defined?  So perhaps the bridge 
>>Location is the Crest level?  If you clear a path on the bridge (with one 
>>TB across the road hexsides), then evidently there is no longer a LOS 
>>obstacle on that level.
>**  Crest level is a concept only necessary in certain cases - those in 
>which Crest status can be gained - and not relevant to rubble placement.
>

If as you say, crest level is only necessary in those cases when crest 
status can be gained, and if you cannot gain crest status in a bridge hex... 
if follows (from your statement) that a crest level does not apply in a 
bridge-gully hex.  Which makes the oft-quoted reference to rubble at crest 
level and depression level moot when a bridge is involved.  Using your 
statement above.

>>Please explain to me the mechanics of clearing a rubble counter from a 
>>bridge-gully hex, if the rubble counter is placed on top of the bridge.
>**  Following B24.71, rubble is cleared within a hex; the bridge (counter) 
>is within the hex, even if a separate location.  If the cleared Trailbreak 
>is placed connecting the bridged hexsides, the rubble counter on the bridge 
>itself has been cleared (the pre-rubble movement costs apply).  Since no 
>other movement is possible in the bridge location, it is sensible to remove 
>that rubble counter.
>

This is _your_ interpretation.  A rubble counter is not removed until all 
hexsides are covered by a TB counter.  If you use two separate counters as 
you propose, then you must clear each counter according to the rules for 
clearance, i.e. with three TB counters each.  And as you point, the rules 
specific _hex_, not counter.

>>  E.g., if I'm on the bridge and successfully pass a Clearance DR.  I then 
>>place a TB counter crossing the two hexsides of the road, thereby 
>>restoring the movement costs to the pre-rubble status, i.e. back to the 
>>bridge cost.
>>What if a subsequent unit is in an adjacent road hex, and instead of 
>>entering the bridge instead chooses to enter INTO the Depression, across a 
>>hexside that has a TB?
>**  Well here's a fine opportunity to observe that there are in fact 2 
>rubble counters in a bridge-gully hex; each is cleared separately, and no I 
>don't require a rule to explicitly tell me that - who's going to halt play 
>of a game to argue the opposite?
>

This only demonstrates that there are two locations.  No place have I seen 
that it is appropriate to place two rubble counters in a single hex.

And by the way... who is halting play?  Are we playing a game right now?  It 
really makes me shake my head in wonder when a Lister makes such a statement 
during a discussion on the ASLML.  They assume that a lengthy discourse here 
means a lengthy discourse would ensue during play.  During play, I would 
just agree to play it however, and make a note to come back to it later.  I 
wouldn't argue like this during play.  That's what the ASLML is for: a 
discussion of rules interpretation and application.  If I did this during 
play, I would soon run out of opponents!

>>Nope, I _don't_ think it's clear, at least as far as Bridge-Gully is 
>>concerned.
>**  Exegesis of the ASL rule book sure is fun!  You need to realize your 
>error(s) in understanding, and apply common sense to fill in those tiny 
>cracks that make the rules visually unappealing, but have no effect on its 
>structural integrity.  :]
>

Exegesis _is_ fun (but not during play).  By "you", do you mean a universal 
"you", or are you referring to me specifically?

As regards common sense, it tells me that a significant portion of the 
rubble that would have fallen IN the gully has fallen instead on the bridge, 
and that the center of the gully should not contain any rubble.  Common 
sense tells me that you should be able to enter INTO the gully from the same 
hexside that contains the road, at the gully rate and not the rubble rate.  
Can you picture that?  Isn't that more "realistic"?

What, we're not supposed to apply realism?  Then how can we apply common 
sense to ASL, which common sense is after all not common and many times does 
not apply to the speech code we call ASL?

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

>Tom Mueller <krynndm at speakeasy.net>
>Ah, DSL!   And Athlon 1900+!
>
>"Oh, so people are being methodically killed
>   by the Banana Splits."
>- Tom Servo, 'Pod People'
>

_________________________________________________________________
Compare high-speed Internet plans, starting at $26.95.  
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)