Post by Vic on Apr 8, 2019 3:53:12 GMT
The other day I was summarising the terrain rules to prepare a home-made reference aid and my attention was drawn to the curious incident of an "in" preposition affecting BUAs in the command distance rule. In the list of situations under which command distance is reduced to 4 BWs, the rule (p.8 pg.8, under Player Initiative Point Dicing) mentions elements "entirely beyond the crest of any Hill, beyond a BUA or a camp, on a Difficult Hill, or in or beyond a Wood, Oasis or Dunes."
But, you may think, there isn't an "in" affecting BUAs in that rule...
That is, in fact, the curious incident.
In a very abstract way, this rule represents the additional difficulty for the General to assess the state or even the position of, send messengers or communicate orders to, and receive feedback from elements in situations in which visibility or access is reduced. Most of the situations in the list are pretty straightforward: Woods, Oasis or Dunes reduce command distance if the "line of sight and communication" between the General and the element has to cross them, so any element either inside or beyond them is affected; Hill crests create a similar obstacle; and it's reasonable for BUAs or camps to make communication difficult if the element and General are at opposite sides of it.
Difficult Hills, which includes an "on" but not a "beyond", requires a bit more parsing, but ultimately makes sense too. Being "on" a Difficult Hill is an obstacle in the same way as Woods is, so communicating with an element on one is comparably impeded. At first sight it might seem strange that elements beyond the Difficult Hill aren't affected, so that a "line of sight and communication" into the Difficult Hill is impeded while a "line of sight and communication" that crosses it but extends into good going is not, but the rule about Hill crests in general also applies to Difficult Hills, so usually any command line extending beyond a Difficult Hill will be reduced for that reason. The only situation in which the lack of "beyond" is relevant is when the General and the element in question are both on good going but separated by the foothill of a Difficult Hill without crossing its crest, but it can be argued that the visibility and communication problem posed by that scenario is less severe and could justify retaining a command distance of 8 BW. In any case, and given that it seems early working versions of 3.0 included a "beyond" Difficult Hills that has since been removed, it doesn't seem an oversight but a design choice.
What piqued my curiosity was the reference to BUA and camp together. Let's discuss camps first. In all the aforementioned cases, we were discussing area terrain pieces on which elements can in principle occupy any position. But camps are different; in camps, elements "dissolve" to man the perimeter, and it makes no sense to talk about positions "inside" the camp - an element is either inside the camp, the whole camp, or outside.
Taking that into account, the wording of the rule for camps makes sense: camps restrict command distance to elements beyond them (as they represent an obstacle for visibility and communication), but not to elements inside them (as the troops garrisoning the camp, and manning its perimeter, can communicate easily through the point of the perimeter closer to the General). [It is certainly harder to internally coordinate a troop element that is distributed along a perimeter and not formed in a more or less contiguous body, but that's a different issue, not related to the communication between the element and the General, and is covered by the other PIP surcharge, shared with Elephants, Hordes, Artillery and other hard-to-coordinate elements.]
And for forts and cities, the parallel is clear. Elements garrisoning cities and forts are pretty much in the same position as elements garrisoning a camp, and the same logic applies.
But in 3.0, BUA does not only refer to Cities and Forts, special terrain pieces with effectively binary occupation in which garrisoning elements "dissolve" to man the perimeter. It refers also to Hamlets and Edifices, regular area terrain pieces (rough and bad going, respectively) through which elements move normally, occupying different positions inside them and without a manned perimeter.
This means that an element inside a Hamlet or Edifice, no matter how much distance of Hamlet or Edifice is intervening, has always a command distance of 8 BW, but as soon as the element is entirely beyond the Hamlet or Edifice, it falls to 4 BW. The paradox is perhaps clearer when depicted graphically:
In this example, the command distance for element C is 8 BW (just as for elements A and B), but for element D, it is 4 BW.
Note that there is no contradiction or problem with the rules as written - no clarification is needed to apply them, they can be straightforwardly applied in a consistent way. However, the ostensibly counter-intuitive result shown in the image above made me wonder if an oversight had happened: is this result what was actually intended?
Taking the rules as written, Hamlets and Edifices are oddities. No rough going terrain reduces or affects command distance except Hamlet; and unlike Difficult Hills, Woods, Oasis and Dunes, which affect command distance for any element inside them, but also unlike Marsh and Gully, which don't, Edifice is unique amongst bad going terrain in reducing command distance only for elements actually outside (beyond) the Edifice.
Looking for some clarity, I looked at another part of the rules where obstacles to visibility are relevant: shooting. Here (p.10 pg.4, under Distant Shooting), the effect of terrain is roughly parallel: shooting is blocked beyond a Hill's crest, beyond a City or a Fort (but not into the City of Fort itself, in keeping with the visibility rationale given before), and beyond 1/2 BW of Difficult Hill, Woods, Oasis or Dunes (again similar to their effect on command distance), and Gully and Marsh don't have an effect as intervening terrain (they do have an effect on eligible shooters and targets, due to the characteristics of the terrain they depict).
However, Hamlet and Edifice do block shooting that cross them for more than 1/2 BW. This suggests visibility and cover is a factor in both Hamlet and Edifice, and the difference between these terrain types and City or Fort is explicitly stated. Note that this means that Edifice behaves, for the purposes of shooting, in the same way as most bad going (with the exception of Marsh and Gully), but that Hamlet stands as the only case of rough going that blocks shooting.
So, with all that information, I think there are a number of ways to interpret the lack of an "in" preposition affecting Hamlets and Edifices in the command distance rules.
a) It is intended exactly as written.
The rules as written describe precisely how each terrain type is intended to work. Hamlet is unique amongst rough going terrain types in affecting command distance and shooting, and Edifice affects both, but at the same time these two types are less restrictive cor command purposes only than other low-visibility terrain types such as Difficult Hills and Woods; as a result, command distance traced into a Hamlet or Edifice isn't reduced, and it's only when the destination is beyond the Hamlet or Edifice that it's affected, while the building(s) in them do provide enough cover to block shooting beyond 1/2 BW. This could perhaps be rationalised in that, unlike the more or less chaotic vegetation, rocks or sand formations in other terrain types, Hamlets and Edifices have open spaces designed for quick movement (such as paths, streets, gates, courtyards or chemins de ronde) while still providing enough buildings, walls and other obstacles for effective cover.
b) It's a left-over from the previous identification of BUA with City.
The wording of the rule is a left-over from previous versions in which BUA was synonymous with City. Therefore, the wording of the rule is intended to apply to Cities (and, by analogy, to Forts, which are essentially the defensive element of cities but without denizens or riches to sack), but not to Hamlet or Edifice. Which opens two possibilities...
b1) Command distance is reduced for elements in both Hamlet and Edifice
By extension of the situation for Woods, Oasis and Dunes, elements in Hamlet and Edifice, as well as those beyond them, have their command distance reduced.
An alternative for the relevant sentence expressing this possibility would be (paraphrasing) elements beyond the crest of any Hill, beyond a city, fort or camp, on a Difficult Hill, or in or beyond a Wood, Oasis, Dunes, Hamlet or Edifice.
b2) Hamlet and Edifice behave differently (as other types of rough or bad going do)
But, you may think, there isn't an "in" affecting BUAs in that rule...
That is, in fact, the curious incident.
In a very abstract way, this rule represents the additional difficulty for the General to assess the state or even the position of, send messengers or communicate orders to, and receive feedback from elements in situations in which visibility or access is reduced. Most of the situations in the list are pretty straightforward: Woods, Oasis or Dunes reduce command distance if the "line of sight and communication" between the General and the element has to cross them, so any element either inside or beyond them is affected; Hill crests create a similar obstacle; and it's reasonable for BUAs or camps to make communication difficult if the element and General are at opposite sides of it.
Difficult Hills, which includes an "on" but not a "beyond", requires a bit more parsing, but ultimately makes sense too. Being "on" a Difficult Hill is an obstacle in the same way as Woods is, so communicating with an element on one is comparably impeded. At first sight it might seem strange that elements beyond the Difficult Hill aren't affected, so that a "line of sight and communication" into the Difficult Hill is impeded while a "line of sight and communication" that crosses it but extends into good going is not, but the rule about Hill crests in general also applies to Difficult Hills, so usually any command line extending beyond a Difficult Hill will be reduced for that reason. The only situation in which the lack of "beyond" is relevant is when the General and the element in question are both on good going but separated by the foothill of a Difficult Hill without crossing its crest, but it can be argued that the visibility and communication problem posed by that scenario is less severe and could justify retaining a command distance of 8 BW. In any case, and given that it seems early working versions of 3.0 included a "beyond" Difficult Hills that has since been removed, it doesn't seem an oversight but a design choice.
What piqued my curiosity was the reference to BUA and camp together. Let's discuss camps first. In all the aforementioned cases, we were discussing area terrain pieces on which elements can in principle occupy any position. But camps are different; in camps, elements "dissolve" to man the perimeter, and it makes no sense to talk about positions "inside" the camp - an element is either inside the camp, the whole camp, or outside.
Taking that into account, the wording of the rule for camps makes sense: camps restrict command distance to elements beyond them (as they represent an obstacle for visibility and communication), but not to elements inside them (as the troops garrisoning the camp, and manning its perimeter, can communicate easily through the point of the perimeter closer to the General). [It is certainly harder to internally coordinate a troop element that is distributed along a perimeter and not formed in a more or less contiguous body, but that's a different issue, not related to the communication between the element and the General, and is covered by the other PIP surcharge, shared with Elephants, Hordes, Artillery and other hard-to-coordinate elements.]
And for forts and cities, the parallel is clear. Elements garrisoning cities and forts are pretty much in the same position as elements garrisoning a camp, and the same logic applies.
But in 3.0, BUA does not only refer to Cities and Forts, special terrain pieces with effectively binary occupation in which garrisoning elements "dissolve" to man the perimeter. It refers also to Hamlets and Edifices, regular area terrain pieces (rough and bad going, respectively) through which elements move normally, occupying different positions inside them and without a manned perimeter.
This means that an element inside a Hamlet or Edifice, no matter how much distance of Hamlet or Edifice is intervening, has always a command distance of 8 BW, but as soon as the element is entirely beyond the Hamlet or Edifice, it falls to 4 BW. The paradox is perhaps clearer when depicted graphically:
In this example, the command distance for element C is 8 BW (just as for elements A and B), but for element D, it is 4 BW.
Note that there is no contradiction or problem with the rules as written - no clarification is needed to apply them, they can be straightforwardly applied in a consistent way. However, the ostensibly counter-intuitive result shown in the image above made me wonder if an oversight had happened: is this result what was actually intended?
Taking the rules as written, Hamlets and Edifices are oddities. No rough going terrain reduces or affects command distance except Hamlet; and unlike Difficult Hills, Woods, Oasis and Dunes, which affect command distance for any element inside them, but also unlike Marsh and Gully, which don't, Edifice is unique amongst bad going terrain in reducing command distance only for elements actually outside (beyond) the Edifice.
Looking for some clarity, I looked at another part of the rules where obstacles to visibility are relevant: shooting. Here (p.10 pg.4, under Distant Shooting), the effect of terrain is roughly parallel: shooting is blocked beyond a Hill's crest, beyond a City or a Fort (but not into the City of Fort itself, in keeping with the visibility rationale given before), and beyond 1/2 BW of Difficult Hill, Woods, Oasis or Dunes (again similar to their effect on command distance), and Gully and Marsh don't have an effect as intervening terrain (they do have an effect on eligible shooters and targets, due to the characteristics of the terrain they depict).
However, Hamlet and Edifice do block shooting that cross them for more than 1/2 BW. This suggests visibility and cover is a factor in both Hamlet and Edifice, and the difference between these terrain types and City or Fort is explicitly stated. Note that this means that Edifice behaves, for the purposes of shooting, in the same way as most bad going (with the exception of Marsh and Gully), but that Hamlet stands as the only case of rough going that blocks shooting.
So, with all that information, I think there are a number of ways to interpret the lack of an "in" preposition affecting Hamlets and Edifices in the command distance rules.
a) It is intended exactly as written.
The rules as written describe precisely how each terrain type is intended to work. Hamlet is unique amongst rough going terrain types in affecting command distance and shooting, and Edifice affects both, but at the same time these two types are less restrictive cor command purposes only than other low-visibility terrain types such as Difficult Hills and Woods; as a result, command distance traced into a Hamlet or Edifice isn't reduced, and it's only when the destination is beyond the Hamlet or Edifice that it's affected, while the building(s) in them do provide enough cover to block shooting beyond 1/2 BW. This could perhaps be rationalised in that, unlike the more or less chaotic vegetation, rocks or sand formations in other terrain types, Hamlets and Edifices have open spaces designed for quick movement (such as paths, streets, gates, courtyards or chemins de ronde) while still providing enough buildings, walls and other obstacles for effective cover.
b) It's a left-over from the previous identification of BUA with City.
The wording of the rule is a left-over from previous versions in which BUA was synonymous with City. Therefore, the wording of the rule is intended to apply to Cities (and, by analogy, to Forts, which are essentially the defensive element of cities but without denizens or riches to sack), but not to Hamlet or Edifice. Which opens two possibilities...
b1) Command distance is reduced for elements in both Hamlet and Edifice
By extension of the situation for Woods, Oasis and Dunes, elements in Hamlet and Edifice, as well as those beyond them, have their command distance reduced.
An alternative for the relevant sentence expressing this possibility would be (paraphrasing) elements beyond the crest of any Hill, beyond a city, fort or camp, on a Difficult Hill, or in or beyond a Wood, Oasis, Dunes, Hamlet or Edifice.
b2) Hamlet and Edifice behave differently (as other types of rough or bad going do)
So far in all of our discussion, Hamlet is the only rough going terrain type that affects command distance - either for elements beyond it or also for elements in it in interpretation b1). Perhaps, if we take the difference between Hamlet and Edifice more fundamentally than what unites them (being forms of BUA), an argument could be made that they should operate as other types of rough and bad going respectively - Edifice reducing command distance for elements in or beyond it, and Hamlet not affecting command distance at all. However, the fact that both types are explicitly listed as blocking shooting (Hamlet being the only rough going type to do so) probably weakens the weight of this approach.
Personally, I'm inclined to support the take described by b1). I'd like to hear about this - if anyone else has encountered this situation, if there's any insight from the play-testing process or if there's a tournament standard in use.
