A 25.23 Human Wave (HW)

[Ole Boe]

The new WA rules ask for much more WA counters, as you must mark all units having WA with them...

But there are quite few units that need to have WA.

Disregarding Bocage, the only times you may need to claim WA is when there is enemy units sharing the wall hexside, or you fear/expect that enemy units may move to share that wall hexside during the Player Turn.

So during your player turns, you don't need to have WA on any units except those sharing the WA with the enemy. And during your opponent's turn, there is seldom more than a couple of hexes where the enemy may contest the WA during the turn.

So I don't think I've ever used more than 5 WA counters at the same time.

 

[Robin Reeve]

... so why should one have more printed?

 

[da priest]

... or you fear/expect that enemy units may move to share that wall hexside during the Player Turn..... .

Sorry I'm not psychic, I don't know where my oppo is going to go. He may CX and run across open ground or do something equally stupid to get to my wall, and he may make it.

So I don't think I've ever used more than 5 WA counters at the same time

Right now I'm defending half of board 42 and already have 5 WA counters out there next to Walls and Hedges(had 6 but somebody moved). Defending all of board 42 with equivalent number of forces could lead to 10+ counters needed, larger scenarios more. Remember they are memory aids and not gold plated....so why not more. And if my use is not what the author of the rules expected..well it is ASL and what did he expect?

 

[WaterRabbit]

Disregarding Bocage, the only times you may need to claim WA is when there is enemy units sharing the wall hexside, or you fear/expect that enemy units may move to share that wall hexside during the Player Turn.

So during your player turns, you don't need to have WA on any units except those sharing the WA with the enemy. And during your opponent's turn, there is seldom more than a couple of hexes where the enemy may contest the WA during the turn.

So I don't think I've ever used more than 5 WA counters at the same time.

9.322 A unit claiming WA must always be marked with a "Wall Advan" counter.

Board 42 has approximately 20 hexes that have both an in-hex TEM of at least +1 and hedges/walls. It would not be difficult to have more than 5 counters in play with the revised WA rules -- they have removed the ambiguity/FOW of this situation from the original rules.

In the original rules, a unit that was in a hex with a building/woods/whatever and hedge/wall did not have to declare which TEM he was using until his opponent expended a resource to find out (i.e. he either had to commit a unit to Prep Fire or move a unit adjacent). Under the revised rules, the ATTACKER no longer has that uncertainty. The DEFENDER must place a "Wall Advan" counter if he wants the hedge/wall TEM instead of the in-hex TEM. In the original rules the DEFENDER could drop WA after an attack was declared but prior to resolution to gain the in-hex TEM. After that point the he could not regain WA until the next turn. Under the current rules that is not possible. This has removed a FOW element from the game that did not rely on a dice mechanic. This, if not obvious, is my "beef" with the revised WA rules.

Ron is right in his analysis of needing WA counters. However, since the bulk of my play is VASL I don't have to worry about running out of counters. :whist:

 

[Ole Boe]

Sorry I'm not psychic, I don't know where my oppo is going to go.

Yes, that was exactly what I meant

He may CX and run across open ground or do something equally stupid to get to my wall, and he may make it.

Yes, he may, at least in some places. However, he may also prep fire. And if he prep fires, you're better off by not having WA in most cases.

A little explanation may be in order:

First, let's disregard the hexes where you share a wall/hedge hexside with the opponent. In those cases, one side will normally have a WA counter - just as with the v.1 rules.

But with the other hexes, it works like this (IMO of course):

During your own player turn, there is no reason to use any WA counters. The opponent is not able to move adjacent, and when he fires during the DFPh, you will be better off by not having WA (in most cases), and never better off by having WA. So no use for WA counters then.


During your opponent's player turn, there is a reason to place WA counters on some hexes, but not all, depending on what you expect your opponent to do.

If you expect him to Prep fire on you, then you should not place WA counters in most cases, since having the WA counter makes you more vulnerable. If you expect him to move adjacent, then you should claim WA to keep your opponent from doing so during his MPh.
If you expect/fear both fire and movement, then you have a though decision.

So if you mindlessly place WA counters on all those hexes, then you've made yourself much more vulnerable during the opponent's fire phases.

 

[Ole Boe]

9.322 A unit claiming WA must always be marked with a "Wall Advan" counter.

Board 42 has approximately 20 hexes that have both an in-hex TEM of at least +1 and hedges/walls. It would not be difficult to have more than 5 counters in play with the revised WA rules -- they have removed the ambiguity/FOW of this situation from the original rules.

I guess the style of play differs, but since (excepting contested walls) there is no reason to have WA during your own PT, and a mixed blessing to have it during your opponent's PT, I seldom see very many WA counters in use.

In the original rules, a unit that was in a hex with a building/woods/whatever and hedge/wall did not have to declare which TEM he was using until his opponent expended a resource to find out (i.e. he either had to commit a unit to Prep Fire or move a unit adjacent).

This is incorrect. I admit the old rules were vague, but they were clarified in the 96 and 97 Annuals.

The only resource your opponent had to expend, was to ask "Do you take in-hex TEM?" If you said "Yes", your WA was lost for the PT. If you said "No", then any fire would be without in-hex TEM.

The opponent did not have to commit any fire to ask you this.

Under the revised rules, the ATTACKER no longer has that uncertainty.

And he didn't have this under the old rules either - if played correctly, see above.

The DEFENDER must place a "Wall Advan" counter if he wants the hedge/wall TEM instead of the in-hex TEM. In the original rules the DEFENDER could drop WA after an attack was declared but prior to resolution to gain the in-hex TEM.

Now, this is an incorrect understanding of the v.1 rules, even without any of the old Q&A. The old (v1) B9.31 says: "The defender in such a hex may choose which of the applicable TEM to use against incoming fire, but must do so before the firer specifies which (if any) unit is firing."

After that point the he could not regain WA until the next turn. Under the current rules that is not possible. This has removed a FOW element from the game that did not rely on a dice mechanic. This, if not obvious, is my "beef" with the revised WA rules.

And it proves my point in the Change... thread, that the v.1 WA rules was misunderstood by most players - even players with much rule knowledge, like you.

This was just some of the mechanics that was not changed, only written very much clearer in v.2 of the rules.

Ron is right in his analysis of needing WA counters. However, since the bulk of my play is VASL I don't have to worry about running out of counters. :whist:

 

[bprobst]

Because under the new rules I find that the best way not to forget WA is to have a WA counter on every squad, near a wall/hedge or not.:devil:

That must be very confusing for your opponents, Ron. I'm surprised that none of them have bothered taking the two minutes it would take to teach you how the WA rules work.

Any way, which "new" WA rules are we talking about? The current rules have been in play for five years now. You're not still using 1st edition, are you? That may cause even more confusion ....

 

[bprobst]

Many units that have WA need not be marked at all -- those who have mandatory WA with no enemy units ADJACENT.

When non-mandatory WA applies, many units that have no enemy units ADJACENT (or likely to become ADJACENT) will also not bother claiming WA.

In most situations, it's only when enemy units are ADJACENT that someone is required to be marked with a WA counter, and that does not happen so frequently that the store of WA counters supplied with BV (supplemented by Paratrooper, if available) is likely to be exhausted. In my experience, at least ....

 

[da priest]

..And if he prep fires, you're better off by not having WA in most cases.

...when he fires during the DFPh, you will be better off by not having WA (in most cases), and never better off by having WA. So no use for WA counters then.

...If you expect him to Prep fire on you, then you should not place WA counters in most cases, since having the WA counter makes you more vulnerable. ...So if you mindlessly place WA counters on all those hexes, then you've made yourself much more vulnerable during the opponent's fire phases.

Interesting. Let's see: usual in hex TEMs, +1 woods, +2 wood buildings, +3 Stone buildings. If he shoots from non-wall side, I get in hex TEM; from wall side I get +2 for wall if I have WA. Funny most of time I got same or equal DRM for shot. Only time I have to decide whether to drop WA is for stone bldg, and that is a tactical decision, not a "marker use" decision. Same goes for hedges, except now the decision point includes wood bldgs too.

Seems both you and Bruce want us to carefully remove WA markers when we don't "need" them, even if we still have WA. Guess to save on WA marker use?

Also, your post seems to indicate a use of fire more than I'm used to, most of the time in my games movement is more prevalent. When the evil opponent AMs across the street do I give him the wall +2 or have it myself and toast him with the -1 for move in open? Or as he just moves across the street let him have the same and get only get a +1 shot, or -2 shot?

And if I leave my WA counter on my guys when they AM from a wall hex-side to the middle of an open field, I don't think my opponents will be confused, as I advance back afterwards, I think they'll understand.

So I'll just 'mindlessly' request more WA counters.

 

[Brian W]

When non-mandatory WA applies, many units that have no enemy units ADJACENT (or likely to become ADJACENT) will also not bother claiming WA.

Yes, but generally if there is any doubt about it, take wall advantage, becuase it is easier to lose WA than it is to claim it. Of course, if you are flanked never take WA because you will receive no TEM from the flanking shot.

 

[Brian W]

If he shoots from non-wall side, I get in hex TEM; from wall side I get +2 for wall if I have WA.

If you are marked WA you cannot claim in hex TEM. Do not take wall advantage if your opponant can shoot at you from a non-wall hexside. Also, watch out for BFF attacks and OBA.

 

[Ole Boe]

Interesting. Let's see: usual in hex TEMs, +1 woods, +2 wood buildings, +3 Stone buildings. If he shoots from non-wall side, I get in hex TEM;

Go back and read the rules, specifically B9.31 which says: "A target unit claiming WA (9.32) does not receive in-hex TEM "

from wall side I get +2 for wall if I have WA. Funny most of time I got same or equal DRM for shot. Only time I have to decide whether to drop WA is for stone bldg

Yes, if you have incorrectly played that a unit with WA can receive in-hex TEM, there is much less reason to forfeit WA.

But you're also forgetting Mortars in this question. When a mortar fires on you, you only get 0 (hedge) or +1 (wall) TEM if having WA, while you get +3 or more if in a stone building.

, and that is a tactical decision, not a "marker use" decision. Same goes for hedges, except now the decision point includes wood bldgs too.

Have I indicated anything else? I only mean that since the tactical situation calls for forfeiting WA in many situations, there isn't need for that many WA counters - at least not when you play it correctly.

 

[Brian W]

I only mean that since the tactical situation calls for forfeiting WA in many situations, there isn't need for that many WA counters - at least not when you play it correctly.

Still, more than I used to use. I have to dig around to get them out of my box too since I have so few of them. Maybe MMP will include more in BVv3.

 

[WaterRabbit]

This is incorrect. I admit the old rules were vague, but they were clarified in the 96 and 97 Annuals.

By original rules, I mean the original rules -- the ones that SOF and HH were tested under. And by clarified you mean changed, so no, it is not incorrect.

The only resource your opponent had to expend was to ask "Do you take in-hex TEM?" If you said "Yes", your WA was lost for the PT. If you said "No", then any fire would be without in-hex TEM.

The opponent did not have to commit any fire to ask you this.

This is the part we are in disagreement. Just answering yes was never sufficient to prevent the DEFENDER from claiming WA later on in the turn. Unless backed up with a shot, the in-hex TEM was never ‘claimed’.

Now, this is an incorrect understanding of the v.1 rules, even without any of the old Q&A. The old (v1) B9.31 says: "The defender in such a hex may choose which of the applicable TEM to use against incoming fire, but must do so before the firer specifies which (if any) unit is firing."

The ATTACKER did not have to specify which unit was firing but he did have to commit at least one unit to fix the terrain of the DEFENDER. The reason being is that if the ATTACKER did not fire, then the in-hex TEM was truly never claimed and the defending unit could then still claim WA against a unit that moved adjacent.

And it proves my point in the Change... thread, that the v.1 WA rules was misunderstood by most players - even players with much rule knowledge, like you.

I learned the WA rules the hard way from about ten guys that did play test SoF and HH. :surprise: For argument’s sake, let’s say that they were incorrect in their interpretation. In effect their interpretation was correct from my perspective because every opponent I have played since that time (and prior to ’96) played it the same way. So if it was misinterpreted, it was uniformly misinterpreted. So from my perspective, it is more likely that you have misunderstood the rule.

The crux of this seems to be the word ‘claimed’. One interpretation is that ‘claimed’ is an action by the player; the other interpretation is that ‘claimed’ is an action taken by a unit. Now ‘claimed’ is indicated by the placement of a counter. All this shows is that one interpretation won out over the other (and only because one faction had control of the rules). If the other faction had control over the rules…well it is interesting to note the changes introduced in '96 & '97 (and of course continued in RBv2) were not during either Don's or Bob's watch.

You are correct. The changes introduced in the '96 & '97 annuals are not much different than RBv2. But they are different than how the v1 rules were played and more importantly how SOF and HH were tested. I have not played a SOF or HH scenario since the changes introduced in those annuals.

To me the changes in WA take the ambiguity out of the WA but don’t preserve the FoW elements in the original.

 

[da priest]

....there isn't need for that many WA counters - at least not when you play it correctly.

Interesting dig, but if I get you right, the only time I'm "incorrect"(rules wise) is when you have been "flanked".

So to paraphase, you are almost always "flanked" when you could use WA, so you don't use as many counters as I do.

Note when I play I do try not to be "flanked", so I do need more counters(is this "correct" play?:devil: ).

Note "flanked" is used in the context of allowing the opponent to position his forces, so that in a PFPh or DFPh he can fire on you and not have his LOS cross the wall.

Another interesting thought, though sort of on different subject: you can drop/forfeit WA at many more times than you can gain. Shoot in MPh, then drop the counter in DFPh!

 

[bprobst]

Seems both you and Bruce want us to carefully remove WA markers when we don't "need" them, even if we still have WA. Guess to save on WA marker use?

Yes, Ron, everything's a conspiracy.

I don't want you to do anything you don't want to do. However, I can tell you that I remove WA markers when they're not needed to keep unnecessary crap off the board.

Look, if you really want to use three times as many WA markers as you need to, who are we to say no?

Bemused thought: actually I just this moment remembered that AoO will have additional WA markers. They will have "Hole In The Ice" on the back!

 

[bprobst]

By original rules, I mean the original rules -- the ones that SOF and HH were tested under.

There are many rules that have been amended since those days. You never play any scenario using the "new" OBA rules, I take it? After all, they changed quite dramatically in 1989; I guess that means that every scenario published prior to that date using OBA is hopelessly altered now. Of course, with the new HW rules being introduced in 1998, every scenario published prior to then that potentially featured a HW (every Russian scenario, every Japanese scenario, every Chinese scenario) also became unbalanced. Wow. Really, I guess it means there's no point in ever playing any existing scenario as soon as any rule is ever amended. So much for all those old classics that people enjoy playing so much.

I have not played a SOF or HH scenario since the changes introduced in those annuals.

I'd check for babies in that bathwater.

 

[WaterRabbit]

Oh please. What I expect is that rule changes are carefully tested - a concept that is clearly foreign to you.

 

[bprobst]

What's foreign to me is that people can be so quick to condemn what they know nothing about. All I hear from you is the complaints of someone who hasn't adapted well to any changes since 1985, and doesn't want to understand what he's decided in advance that he doesn't like. Well, you're entitled to be as insular as you want; just don't expect anyone else to pay much attention.

 

[WaterRabbit]

What's foreign to me is that people can be so quick to condemn what they know nothing about. All I hear from you is the complaints of someone who hasn't adapted well to any changes since 1985, and doesn't want to understand what he's decided in advance that he doesn't like. Well, you're entitled to be as insular as you want; just don't expect anyone else to pay much attention.

ROFTL. This from you? :laugh: Take a look in the mirror.