01-09-2022, 02:20 AM,
(This post was last modified: 01-09-2022, 02:22 AM by patman.)
|
|
patman
Corporal
|
Posts: 50
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2012
|
|
RE: FitS Scenario 4 set-up
Wait Wait WAIT! Half hexes do count *as being hexes*, but they are surely hex 0, not hex 1, because THEY CONTAIN THE EDGE!!! "One hex away from the edge" is the hex ADJACENT to the half-hex containing the edge, NOT THE HALF-HEX CONTAINING THE EDGE!!! In other words, J6A's gut feeling is correct, it *IS* the 04 row that is meant to be the forward limit in that scenario in question.
Also note that whole hexes do not have this issue, since they are next to the edge and do not contain it.
This just came up for me because I am playing Scenario 5 in Pusan Perimeter with exactly this kind of "boundary condition." It was clear to me from the situation that counting half-hexes as hex 0 and not hex 1 was the right thing to do.
Pat
treadasaurusrex likes this post
|
|
01-09-2022, 07:49 AM,
(This post was last modified: 01-09-2022, 09:18 AM by patman.)
|
|
patman
Corporal
|
Posts: 50
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2012
|
|
RE: FitS Scenario 4 set-up
Yeah Peter, it says "Half-hexes on the board edges may be used (they are "playable")". This is true, but they are STILL ON THE EDGE!
You are conflating two different things, playability and being ON the edge. Doesn't change an iota of what I wrote. If you are "one hex from the edge", you are not in the hex that contains the edge.
EDIT:
You know, I should probably just concede that you are right here and say that the rule pushes the edge to the top or far side of the half hex. So yes, I concede. But what I think is happening is that sometimes the scenario designers view things my way, and sometimes (perhaps most of the time) yours. I think J6A discovered a case of the former.
|
|
|