Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

Advanced Squad Leader» Forums » Rules

Subject: Crest Line LOS rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Christian Mertens
Germany
Köln
NRW
flag msg tools
Hi All,

I have just started and done some "on my own"-Training with regard to Guns, Vehicles and all. The Starter Kits helped a lot. But the starter Kits are - imho - a bit gaunt regarding the LOS rules. I have played other Wargames for a long time and am fine with the concept and understanding of LOS. But all of them had a bigger scale, therefore I have special problems with the Crest Line LOS. I think I kind of got it now on board 8 in a FKAC, but I want to make sure.

As far as I get it
- a unit can always (with regard to Crest Lines; not "ALWAYS") see an adjacent unit
- a unit can always see "downhill" as long as each hex depicts a "one level lower" Hill.
- You can always see the first Crest Line Hex
- A unit can not see "downhill" IF there is at least one more hex between the target hex and the firer hex which is of the same level as the firing unit (because you can't look "down the corner").
My Questions:
1) What is the Crest Line Hex? Where does the Crest Line have to be that it qualifies as the Crest Line hex? (My Guess: The Hex in which the "new" Crest line appears for the first time.
2) WHEN "is" there one more hex of the same level? Is it important if there is a crest line of the same level anywhere on the hex or does the crest line have to be at least on or behind the center dot (seen from the firing unit)?

I hope I got the question right
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martí Cabré

Terrassa
Catalonia, Spain
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Any hex with two hill levels us a crest line hex and it applies for the rules you said. Its level is the level of its center hex, even if you trace LOS to a unit bypassing on the "lower" side of the hex. That's for the sake of simplicity (in ASL, cough, cough).

Also note that ADJACENT units are adjacent units that happen to have LOS, so not all adjacent unita have LOS to each other.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Vicca
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Note that you cannot bypass a crest line so even if the woods you are bypassing extend over the cresst line to a lower elevation, when you bypass thise woods, you are on the higher elevation.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Sielski
United States
Pequannock
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I remember when I started ASL in the 1980s, I could not grasp hills and crest lines ... although city buildings were simple. Funny thinking about it now.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Taylor
United States
Kearny
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Hi Christian,

You might want to take a look at Day 2 in the Training Manual; Board 2 is used heavily in that section.

Hope this helps,

Greg
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pierce Ostrander
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Vinnie37 wrote:
Note that you cannot bypass a crest line so even if the woods you are bypassing extend over the cresst line to a lower elevation, when you bypass thise woods, you are on the higher elevation.


This was changed in Journal 10.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klas Malmstrom
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
fubar awol wrote:
Vinnie37 wrote:
Note that you cannot bypass a crest line so even if the woods you are bypassing extend over the cresst line to a lower elevation, when you bypass thise woods, you are on the higher elevation.


This was changed in Journal 10.

That is not the intention of the B10.1 errata. The errata is not about bypass movement, granted it could have used an exception and a x-ref to the bypass rule to make that clear.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pierce Ostrander
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
klasmalmstrom wrote:
fubar awol wrote:
Vinnie37 wrote:
Note that you cannot bypass a crest line so even if the woods you are bypassing extend over the cresst line to a lower elevation, when you bypass thise woods, you are on the higher elevation.


This was changed in Journal 10.

That is not the intention of the B10.1 errata. The errata is not about bypass movement, granted it could have used an exception and a x-ref to the bypass rule to make that clear.



At 30,000 feet... the stated intent of the new rule and the discussion of it presented in Journal 10 is to make the game rules

about LOS consistent with what players actually see on the board. Making the game rules for bypass consistent with what players actually see on the board is a good thing too. Without the exception and x-ref the new rules needs a Q&A.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klas Malmstrom
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Here is (sort of) a Perry Sez on a similair question: http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?110708-VBM-Crest-...

I do agree, that the new wording in B10.1 could use some tweaking to make it clearer that Bypass movement is not changed.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pierce Ostrander
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
klasmalmstrom wrote:
I do agree, that the new wording in B10.1 could use some tweaking to make it clearer that Bypass movement is not changed.


Journal 10, page 32 "Notes on the B10.1 errata". And I quote: "Another element of the B10.1 errata involves movement, not LOS."

The author goes on to discuss (non bypass) movement between 2 hexes on board 39.


It is perfectly logical to apply the change to Bypass movement as well. So, if:

(1) a woods obstacle is in a hex containing a crestline and
(2) the woods or building obviously extends down to the "low side" of the crestline,
(3) it can be bypassed along that lower level without climbing the hill.

Now... I wonder if there are actually any boards where this situation exists?

Note to Klas - the "perry says" you reference does not address this issue at all. The example is of a building that is clearly on the higher level of the hill - no part of it extends across the crestline to the lower level. Therefore, it would be bypassed at the higher level.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pierce Ostrander
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fubar awol wrote:
Now... I wonder if there are actually any boards where this situation exists?


So, I went looking at my board scans... the first instance appears on board 2 - and it's a doozie. I didn't have to go any further.

Board 2 - Y7


In the case of this board 2 example - visually it would seem obvious to anyone that a vehicle moving from Z7 to Y7 (bypassing Y7/Y8 hexside) is moving from level 1 to the ground level. The current rules ask you to believe that the unit is still at level 2.

A hovertank!



The stated intent of the errata is to solve this dissconnect between what the players see and what the rules required.

Again, I quote from Journal 10:

"Where crestlines were outlined, the rule actually flew in the face of what players were seeing. So errata were needed."


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klas Malmstrom
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
fubar awol wrote:
It is perfectly logical to apply the change to Bypass movement as well.

Well, one is free to do that. I personally won't do it, but then (in this particular case) I know the intent behind the errata and it was not to override A4.34:

"...If a unit is using Bypass (including VBM) along a Crest Line, and the obstacle it is Bypassing is on the higher level of that Crest Line, then the unit is also at that higher level (since a Crest Line itself cannot be Bypassed; 4.3)."

Had that been the intention, then (IMO) errata to A4.34 would also have been issued.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martí Cabré

Terrassa
Catalonia, Spain
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For the sake of movement (not LOS) just remember that Crest Lines cannot be bypassed and imagine that Crest Lines extend to the hexsides, without connecting to the next hill hex if there was no connection prior to the imaginary extension.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Vicca
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
In my opinion the errata would not alter the crest line bypass provisions as the knock on effect on older scenarios would be huge.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klas Malmstrom
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Vinnie37 wrote:
In my opinion the errata would not alter the crest line bypass provisions as the knock on effect on older scenarios would be huge.

Which wasn't the intention either.

I've sent MMP/Perry an email on the matter just to make sure that my recollection of the intention is correct.

In retrospect perhaps the errata should have said something like this to be clearer:
"movement purposes [EXC: A4.34]"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pierce Ostrander
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
klasmalmstrom wrote:
fubar awol wrote:
It is perfectly logical to apply the change to Bypass movement as well.

Well, one is free to do that. I personally won't do it, but then (in this particular case) I know the intent behind the errata and it was not to override A4.34:

"...If a unit is using Bypass (including VBM) along a Crest Line, and the obstacle it is Bypassing is on the higher level of that Crest Line, then the unit is also at that higher level (since a Crest Line itself cannot be Bypassed; 4.3)."

Had that been the intention, then (IMO) errata to A4.34 would also have been issued.


That's fair. And I would be an advocate of providing errata of A4.34.

Why?

IMO - for consistency's sake, as long as we are fixing disconnects between what players see and what the rules state, we should fix all of them!

The author of the Journal 10 explanatory article states (with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek) that: "we have heard rumors of some players claiming that the terrain is floating at the higher level above ground level..."

In my example above you have a vehilcle "floating at the higher level above the ground level".



Vinnie37 wrote:
In my opinion the errata would not alter the crest line bypass provisions as the knock on effect on older scenarios would be huge.


Fiddlesticks. That's just hyperbole.

Any effect would insignificant. How many times would a vehicle:

1) in bypass of a woods hex that crossed a crestline and therefore
2) be considered to be at a different elevation than it otherwise would have
3) during an actual game in progress,
4) gain an advantage due to that fact?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pierce Ostrander
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
marticabre wrote:
For the sake of movement (not LOS) just remember that Crest Lines cannot be bypassed and imagine that Crest Lines extend to the hexsides, without connecting to the next hill hex if there was no connection prior to the imaginary extension.


"remember and imagine" – talk about extra rules overhead! This kind of thing is part of what makes ASL such a rules nightmare. Errata should fix this sort of crap.

Why not just make the rules consistent with what is seen so we don't have to override our senses to play the game properly?

That is what Journal 10 is trying to do...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martí Cabré

Terrassa
Catalonia, Spain
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fubar awol wrote:
marticabre wrote:
For the sake of movement (not LOS) just remember that Crest Lines cannot be bypassed and imagine that Crest Lines extend to the hexsides, without connecting to the next hill hex if there was no connection prior to the imaginary extension.


"remember and imagine" – talk about extra rules overhead! This kind of thing is part of what makes ASL such a rules nightmare. Errata should fix this sort of crap.

Why not just make the rules consistent with what is seen so we don't have to override our senses to play the game properly?

That is what Journal 10 is trying to do...


I'm sure the writing of the rules could be better.

I don't like the OBA rules, for example.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Vicca
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
fubar awol wrote:
klasmalmstrom wrote:
fubar awol wrote:
It is perfectly logical to apply the change to Bypass movement as well.

Well, one is free to do that. I personally won't do it, but then (in this particular case) I know the intent behind the errata and it was not to override A4.34:

"...If a unit is using Bypass (including VBM) along a Crest Line, and the obstacle it is Bypassing is on the higher level of that Crest Line, then the unit is also at that higher level (since a Crest Line itself cannot be Bypassed; 4.3)."

Had that been the intention, then (IMO) errata to A4.34 would also have been issued.


That's fair. And I would be an advocate of providing errata of A4.34.

Why?

IMO - for consistency's sake, as long as we are fixing disconnects between what players see and what the rules state, we should fix all of them!

The author of the Journal 10 explanatory article states (with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek) that: "we have heard rumors of some players claiming that the terrain is floating at the higher level above ground level..."

In my example above you have a vehilcle "floating at the higher level above the ground level".



Vinnie37 wrote:
In my opinion the errata would not alter the crest line bypass provisions as the knock on effect on older scenarios would be huge.


Fiddlesticks. That's just hyperbole.

Any effect would insignificant. How many times would a vehicle:

1) in bypass of a woods hex that crossed a crestline and therefore
2) be considered to be at a different elevation than it otherwise would have
3) during an actual game in progress,
4) gain an advantage due to that fact?



I can speak from experience when an opponent needed to get a tank round the back of a hill, bypassing a woods on the hill (board 38?) the fact he needed to go up to the first level to bypass those woods meant his vehicle could not get into position to prevent me enveloping his defence.
I've seen this happen several times. It DOES make a difference.
It's not so much the height advantage but the extra 4 MPs for going up a level that atters.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pierce Ostrander
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Vinnie37 wrote:
fubar awol wrote:
klasmalmstrom wrote:
fubar awol wrote:
It is perfectly logical to apply the change to Bypass movement as well.

Well, one is free to do that. I personally won't do it, but then (in this particular case) I know the intent behind the errata and it was not to override A4.34:

"...If a unit is using Bypass (including VBM) along a Crest Line, and the obstacle it is Bypassing is on the higher level of that Crest Line, then the unit is also at that higher level (since a Crest Line itself cannot be Bypassed; 4.3)."

Had that been the intention, then (IMO) errata to A4.34 would also have been issued.


That's fair. And I would be an advocate of providing errata of A4.34.

Why?

IMO - for consistency's sake, as long as we are fixing disconnects between what players see and what the rules state, we should fix all of them!

The author of the Journal 10 explanatory article states (with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek) that: "we have heard rumors of some players claiming that the terrain is floating at the higher level above ground level..."

In my example above you have a vehilcle "floating at the higher level above the ground level".



Vinnie37 wrote:
In my opinion the errata would not alter the crest line bypass provisions as the knock on effect on older scenarios would be huge.


Fiddlesticks. That's just hyperbole.

Any effect would insignificant. How many times would a vehicle:

1) in bypass of a woods hex that crossed a crestline and therefore
2) be considered to be at a different elevation than it otherwise would have
3) during an actual game in progress,
4) gain an advantage due to that fact?



I can speak from experience when an opponent needed to get a tank round the back of a hill, bypassing a woods on the hill (board 38?) the fact he needed to go up to the first level to bypass those woods meant his vehicle could not get into position to prevent me enveloping his defence.
I've seen this happen several times. It DOES make a difference.
It's not so much the height advantage but the extra 4 MPs for going up a level that atters.


I accept you statement but I stick with my opinion.

Scenario balance is not a science and good players know how to put units where they need to be when they need to be there within any reasonable set of constraints.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.