[ASLML] Re: Bridge/Gully

[Bruce Bakken]

>
> >And a gully-rubble hex is different than a
> >bridge-gully-rubble hex.
>
>Apart from the obvious difference of there being a bridge ... why?  What
>makes them different?
>
>The bridge has certain special rules applicable to itself, but *none* of
>those rules change the properties of the Depression Location in any way.
>

I believe Tate listed a few of the ways a Bridge changes a Depression 
Location.  The ones that come immediately to my mind are the prohibition 
against Infantry gaining Crest Status, and the TEM received versus Indirect 
Fire.

> >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.
>
>And those special terms are defined in the Index.  For the ones that 
>aren't,
>one turns to the dictionary.  Either that, or you throw your hands in the
>air and declare the rules to be unreadable.  Your choice; me, I settle for
>the dictionary.
>

Which begs the question of which words or phrases should be given an ASL 
Term.

How would you define "fire" in ASL?

Clearly, the dictionary does not define an ASL Depression.

>Your entire argument stems from a faulty initial assumption, Bruce: that
>it's impossible to place two rubble counters in a single hex.  Remove that
>assumption (which is based on *no* statement in the rules) and every
>objection you have fails.

Your entire argument stems from a faulty initial assumption, Bruce: that the 
EXC refers to the number of rubble counters the hex contains.  Remove that 
assumption (which is based on _no_ statement in the rules) and you'll see 
that the rule states to place one counter in the hex, on top of the bridge.

You cannot take the EXC out of the context of its sentence.  The EXC merely 
affirms that the bridge stills exists (i.e. is still the terrain in the 
hex), and instructs where to place the falling rubble counter (on top of the 
bridge, as opposed to under it).  It _does not_ say, "add a second rubble 
counter".

>
>Have I mentioned that you're thinking too hard about this?  I'm quite
>serious.  You can't approach the rules that way.  It leads to madness.  
>Take
>them at face value, and only raise a question when the rule either has no
>apparent answer, or a contradictory answer.  Neither applies here.
>

Have I mentioned that perhaps you're not thinking hard enough about this?  
Seriously.  By having so much experience, perhaps you've become too 
ingrained in your understanding of the rules.  You appear not to see that 
taking it at face value causes the contradiction here.  One phrase, which 
according to your description above is not a special ASL term and uses a 
dictionary definition, is being used in two ways with two different 
meanings.  That definitely applies here.

Bruce Bakken

>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Bruce Probst              bprobst at netspace.net.au
>Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
>"Ribbet, ribbet, ribbet."
>ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ
>

_________________________________________________________________
Is your computer infected with a virus?  Find out with a FREE computer virus 
scan from McAfee.  Take the FreeScan now! 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963