Allowable tactics I've somehow missed until now

[Wayne]

After decades I can sometimes still learn some (marginally?) useful ASL-allowable "tactics" I'd somehow not noticed before...

I read in another thread today:

From the Q&A file.

A12.12 says a player setting up places his regular units and then places only scenario OB-designated "?" at first, and only in Terrain listed in red on the Terrain charts. May a player place scenario OB-designated counters beneath regular units in his setup (assuming it ins suitable terrain)? If the answer is yes, then any regular units above the OB-"?" in the stack will not gain pregame concealment, per the EXC in A12.12 "only one non-OB-designated "?" can be placed per stack and not on top of any previously placed "?"]". correct?
A Yes. Correct.

(red emphasis added). I've always (mis)read the first sentence of A12.12...

The player setting up first in a scenario does so out of vision of his opponent, and after setting up his regular units may place only scenario OB-designated “?” at first...

...to mean scenario OB-designated “?” may be placed atop (not below) real units -- but (impicit per this Q&A) that's not what the rule says.

So, before pregame "free" Concealment gain for an on-board setup, I can stack a real unit atop two or more OB-given "?" to suggest a real multi-counter stack.

Per an A12.12 [EXC: ...] I'm NA to place a "free" "?" atop that "stack" owing to the (hidden) OB-given "?" below a real unit but
if the (faux) stack is located in a place likely to be in LOS before game-start anyway (and would therefore have been ineligible for "?" gain in any event), then
the small ruse of tucking two (A12.11) or more "?" beneath a real unit may have some fog-of-play value in the ensuing game.

IOW, I've been a little stupid. Or maybe just forgetful? Anyway:

What other nuances have I maybe missed/forgotten since late last century? Please share...

 

[Tuomo]

Sorry, I have no idea why this might be useful. If I understand you correctly, you're saying there might be value in setting up a 467, ?, ? stack, as opposed to a ?, ?, 467 stack. Because... your opponent wouldn't expect to be denied right of inspection below the 467? That seems like small potatoes compared to the value of concealing the 467 in the first place. But hey, maybe one's opponent is easily rattled by odd behavior

 

[von Marwitz]

Sorry, I have no idea why this might be useful. If I understand you correctly, you're saying there might be value in setting up a 467, ?, ? stack, as opposed to a ?, ?, 467 stack. Because... your opponent wouldn't expect to be denied right of inspection below the 467? That seems like small potatoes compared to the value of concealing the 467 in the first place. But hey, maybe one's opponent is easily rattled by odd behavior

Wayne is talking about nuances... (And I appreciate his well developed sense for these time and again. )

Your opponent does not have 'Right of Inspection' before the game starts.
So before the game starts, the opponent could not inspect a stack of OB-given Dummies with a real unit on top.

The purpose is to suggest a real multi-counter stack where there is none and in that way to influence or mislead the setup of the opponent.

Then, after the completion of setup, pregame "free" Concealment is gained.
At this time, the mind games of suggesting real multi-counter stacks is partly called:

On your stack of an OB-given Dummy with a real unit on top in Concealment-Terrain, the real unit could not gain an extra "free" Concealment counter on top of everything. If it wanted to gain Concealment at this point, it would need to be placed beneath the Dummy, revealing that the suggested real multi-counter stack is at least smaller that it originally suggested to be.

On the other hand, if you want to keep up the suggestion of the original (un-)real multi-stack, then you could not claim "free" Concealment at game start because this is N/A atop of any Dummy. Your opponent will smell your ploy, though: Why should you not claim Concealment if able to do so being out of his LOS?

If within LOS, you could not claim "free" pre-game Concealment, but your opponent would then have the opportunity to inspect the stack - which would also reveal that the suggested multi-stack is not entirely real.

So the nuance lies in suggesting supposedly real multi-stacks between the setup of the defender and before the gaining of "free" Concealment gain at the start of play in order to affect the way your opponent sets up.

von Marwitz

 

[Tuomo]

The purpose is to suggest a real multi-counter stack where there is none and in that way to influence or mislead the setup of the opponent.

So, basically what I said. With lots more paragraphs?

 

[von Marwitz]

So, basically what I said. With lots more paragraphs?

Ja.

von Marwitz