Buildings and Adjacency

[Ty Snouffer]

Modern Era 10.2 refers to Buildings and Hills. There is reference to adjacent hexes and different levels of Hills (yes adjacent). There is also reference to adjacent hexes but on different levels of a multi-story building (Not adjacent/No LOS).

What about upper storey of a Building and adjacent non building hex like below. I assume LOS is valid but what about adjacency for the +2 DFT modifier?

Are these units adjacent?

 

[David Gray]

I'm not authority but if the Vietnamese unit is upper story I'd call them non-adjacent, trying to apply the same principle at work in cases that are addressed by the rules.

 

[Ty Snouffer]

"trying to apply the same principle at work in cases that are addressed by the rules."

I'm not sure what principle you are thinking of, but for Hills adjacent hexes that are different levels are adjacent. So by that principle the building and non-building hexes would be adjacent in the example I gave (yes, there is an Upper Level counter peeking out from under that VC MMC).

What were you thinking of?

Thanks for replying.

 

[David Gray]

"trying to apply the same principle at work in cases that are addressed by the rules."

I'm not sure what principle you are thinking of, but for Hills adjacent hexes that are different levels are adjacent. So by that principle the building and non-building hexes would be adjacent in the example I gave (yes, there is an Upper Level counter peeking out from under that VC MMC).

What were you thinking of?

Thanks for replying.

That's actually a good point, re the hills. I was thinking that adjacent but different level units in buildings are not adjacent but considering your point I think I'd reverse my opinion.

 

[Ty Snouffer]

Ha! Now you can see why I am asking! Cheers

 

[Barthheart]

We've always played that upper level of a building is not "adjacent" to the non-building adjacent hex. I'm not sure if that was ever changed in the rules.

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

Considering that:

1) Units in adjacent hexes but on different levels of a Multi-story Building(s) ARE NOT considered adjacent and don’t have LOS to each other (10.2)
2) If an adjacent hex is a Multi-story Building, the Leader can only activate the units on the same level as himself, unless the Leader is in the Building and chooses to activate the hex above or below himself. (4.0)

I would say that, in the situation depicted above, those units are NOT considered adjacent but do have LOS.

Note that Units in adjacent hexes but on different level Hills ARE considered adjacent (10.2).

it seems as if the "adjacency" effect is restricted in the first situation by the constricted nature of the building windows

 

[Ryan Shannahan]

That picture in the original post is exactly the situation on my map I was coming here to resolve! River of Perfume.

My understanding of the rules is that they are not adjacent, using the same logic that Stéphane used above.

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

Unfortunately, it appears I was wrong. A week ago, I asked Jeff Lewis about this and he said they have to be considered adjacents. The fact that those units would have to move twice to get to each other in melee (one to move in the same hex and one to change level) is irrelevant; After all, units adjacent to a hex containing a bunker in which other units are located are considered adjacents, even though they would have to enter the hex (and be even more adjacent ) and then move into the bunker to melee

Simply said, if the rules don't specificaly mention non adjacency (like some in-building situations and fixed-wing aircraft), they have to be considered adjacent.

That being said, you can still house-rules this

 

[Ryan Shannahan]

Good to know, thanks for sharing, Stéphane. Didn't affect anything in my game as the rolls were wildly divergent.

 

[Ty Snouffer]

This hurts my head.

 

[Barthheart]

So to recap:

Hexes that are adjacent that have a clear LOS to each other are to be considered adjacent.
Hexes that are adjacent that do not have a clear LOS, ie blocked, to each other are to be considered not adjacent. Example: different levels of the same building. (This is the only example I can think of...)

So that should make it easy to remember: if you can see it and your are adjacent you get the +2 modifier.

I can buy that. It makes it easy and consistent.

 

[Ty Snouffer]

So to recap:

Hexes that are adjacent that have a clear LOS to each other are to be considered adjacent.
Hexes that are adjacent that do not have a clear LOS, ie blocked, to each other are to be considered not adjacent. Example: different levels of the same building. (This is the only example I can think of...)

So that should make it easy to remember: if you can see it and your are adjacent you get the +2 modifier.

I can buy that. It makes it easy and consistent.

Good way to keep it straight and seems to align with the intent.

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

Hum...Would have to check if a hex at the base of a cliff (more than two level difference) is considered adjacent to the top of the cliff...And of course, as mentionned before, fixed-wings aircraft are never adjacent to ground units

 

[Nick DelCorpo]

What about if you had two different multi-story building adjacent and the enemies are on the same floor. That wound be considered adjacent, correct? I always thought the +2 was for concentrated fire, hand grenades, and whatever other close quarters weapons (Trench guns, grease guns, etc...) are available. I would think that the +2 would stand as the range is the same for grenade, shotguns, etc... In fact maybe it should be + 3 for adjacency from attack from a higher level building to an enemy on the ground. After all, the men in the building will have windows and kill holes to use and protect, grenades would be easier to throw and aim, and knowing the entrances should carry that over if OP fire is taking place. Say the enemy is coming up the stairs. Staying with that the men on the ground should get a +1 for their adjacency bonus. It's harder to trow grenades upwards and you'd be spotting "smaller" targets. This is the only thing that kills me with Lock N Load rules. Why can't we have the "why". Why is it that way, what is the designers thinking behind the rules. We always say Lock N Load has a historic component based on realism. So rules explanations should be easy. I was under the impression Bunkers, Multi-Story Buildings, and there are a few other such cases concerning in-hex terrain which I can't remember now were considered two distinct, separate hexes in one.