Search results

I think some people might be using the 'show me a boot' philosophy based on the description used in Right of Inspection: A12.16 "..The required response to this demand is limited to showing only the information needed for verification.." Also, the INTENT (that dam word again!) behind revealing...

For Q2, Yes (if appropriate circumstances apply - ie, adjacent enemy). However, if I remember correctly, Failure to Rout is NA at night.

Yes. With exceptions (of course). Should be located in B9 (nrbh, but I believe bocage WA is treated exactly the same as with regular walls/hedges).

First off, my post is not based on 'ignorance' because I did purchase the CH systems (I actually tried Combat!, and then later ATS, with some hope for an improvement from one to another), and I have a perfectly clear perspective on the games in question. I saw those systems for what they were...

I think what you're asking is covered in the first paragraph of E3? ...an EC result of "Snow" or "Mud" does not activate those respective weather rules if the Temperate Weather Chart result/SSR listing (or non-listing) is Clear - only their EC DRM/drm applies...

I found ATS to be more of a 'dumbed-down' rather that a 'streamlined' take on ASL. And no doubt about it, it was an ASL wannabe from the get-go. The game seemed to be thrown together with a consultant mentality: "How to cut 90% from ASL and make it better?" Well, for me, it didn't live up to...

I noticed that many scenarios stipulate 'x squad equivalents (and any SW/SMC stacked with them)', likely to avoid this type of confusion. However, A5.5 clarifies equivalencies (which then opens a potential bag of worms stating 4 or less SMC count as zero squad-equivalents).

That settles it, I defer to the Creator! For surely, the road to the ASLRB is paved with good intentions...

You hardly hear news about the gaming industry, but the one angle I would venture to guess would be the interest in Wizards of the Coast (a Hasbro subsidiary) which has been in many legal battles lately with Nintendo (aka, that Pokemon company). Maybe there is an effort being made to "buy them...

COWTRA indeed. The designer's have thought of every permutation of every possible action (and squeezed it all into the rulebook). ...Getting back to the real world: Looking at the paragraph (B8.41), I see a system which gives the possiblity of getting lost every turn while in the sewer (which...

Not arguing the definitions of CURRENT and PREVIOUS, because that clause merely 'allows' a return to a previous location. I'm saying that the rules don't specifically 'disallow' you to end your phase in the same hex you started in. As long as you... 1. Stay within three hexes of your starting...

Technically "a Sewer Location occupied during a previous turn" includes the Location you are starting the current turn in? i.e., If I ended my movement in Sewer Location Y8 during my previous turn, Y8 is a Sewer Location I "occupied during a previous turn". If there is some implication that...

I agree, the section from B8.41 which talks about this "Units in a Sewer must move during their MPh; they cannot remain motionless, although they can return to a Sewer Location occupied during a previous turn." just seems to say that you have to move the unit into at least one new hex. I see...

Boy was I off! (so much for trusting your opponent to lead you into uncharted territory!). So now that I have the RB in hand, I'll try (once again) to answer a few questions. Maybe I'll get one right this time: 1. You DO move (up to 3 hexes) on the same turn you enter the sewer "B8.41 Sewer...

I stand corrected. After consulting the rulebook, B8.41 makes it pretty clear.

NRBH, so I can't give you exact rule #s, but I just finished a game with this and it's <somewhat> fresh in my head: 1) It costs your full movement to enter the sewer. So you must start your MPh on that "manhole" location and spend the entire MPh just to enter the sewer. The next turn you...

10.531 doesn't solve the problem (if you consider the lack of reciprocity a problem) It only defines what Open Ground is. A12.14 defines WHEN (and under what circumstances) Concealment removal can possibly occur. The "when a unit [advances] into an Open Ground hex." seems to miss the...

Finally got home and checked out the RB (and the Concealment Table)v2 Both use the phrase "moves/advances/withdraws into an Open Ground hex" for concealment loss. No reference about where you're coming from or what you're going through. So it seems that it doesn't matter what hex (or terrain...

First off, I'm not arguing with the consensus here. I'm just not clear on one point - and how my interpretation of it is faltering (and not having the RB here is making my mind run circles - lesson learned, I guess): I thought concealment loss was based on "the hex you were moving into", not...

This conflicts with Brian's assesment (and NRBH), but I thought it was: B27.?? states that the foxhole is in the same Location as the hex, so advancing from beneath a foxhole to an adjacent hex is possible. And, as long as you're not advancing into an Open Ground hex (Concealment chart or...