Change the foxhole rule? (B27.4)

Should rule B27.4 be changed?

  • Yes, all movement to/from a foxhole location should be cosnidered a single expenditure

    Votes: 58 28.7%
  • Yes, but only Assault moving units may benefit from the foxhole's TEM.

    Votes: 50 24.8%
  • No, the rule is fine as is.

    Votes: 94 46.5%

  • Total voters
    202

Earthpig

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
2,164
Reaction score
124
Location
Baldwin, WI
Country
llUnited States
Hmmm -- I think I'll file that away in the big file 'o SSRs. :yummy:
Would the attacker then get to advance out of CC?
yes OR advance into CC with a just advanced DEFENDER.(didn't think of that, but sure why not.) It could represent falling back just in time:smoke:
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,647
Reaction score
734
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
Yeah, in the "early days" of most things people usually did some things wrong...then they figured it out. :D
Wrong? I hardly think so; I think the longevity of the game has allowed a greater examination of how the game's subsystems interact and of the natural tendency of players to winkle out the greatest advantage.


1) Skulking has been part of the rules sense day 1!
Really? I don't recall-and I admit I could be forgetting-seeing any reference to, or examples of-skulking in any of the Series Replays I read as a lad. Examples, perhaps?

2) Take away skulking and FH are still death traps...it's just that every other terrain would become death traps as well.
Skulking and FH are not seamlessly compatible (you can still skulk to/from them with the exposure to DF on exit) but they aren't completely useless. Mayhaps the creep of Maneuver Warfare Theory into ASL has corrupted some of the precepts once held at the begining?

3) It's a game...oh well...
Yes, but "It's a game" is a poor non sequitur to throw out when words fail you. You seriously don't think the silliness of moving units back and forth a hex during play detracts from an otherwise fine gaming experience?

4) You need some acting lessons...:laugh:
I need lessons alright, I just don't think they're acting lessons...


As someone once told me..."This is not a fact, just your opinion." :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Aren't all posts on these forums opinion? :devious: I don't think I represented my post as anything other, unless I missed something somewhere?:devious:
 
Last edited:

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
1,082
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
For the record, I use to play a little with one of the original playtest groups and they did not skulk from the beginning, that didn't become a standard tactic until after Yanks was out. Other playtest groups may have found it sooner, but not so sure it was much earlier...

Steve
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,410
Reaction score
3,023
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
For the record, I use to play a little with one of the original playtest groups and they did not skulk from the beginning, that didn't become a standard tactic until after Yanks was out. Other playtest groups may have found it sooner, but not so sure it was much earlier...

Steve
I would suspect that the 6 ML for 1st line US troops had something to do with the motivation to develop the skulk.
 

B.Lizt

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
327
Reaction score
44
Location
South of Oslo
Country
llNorway
Hi

I am kind of missing the logic here.

Why do you have to change every rule someone might think is faulty,
just because you want to change one rule most people seem to agree is faulty?
:nuts:

Regards,
Olav
 

MLaPanzer

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
2,151
Reaction score
86
Location
Northwood,Ohio USA
Country
llUnited States
Hi

I am kind of missing the logic here.

Why do you have to change every rule someone might think is faulty,
just because you want to change one rule most people seem to agree is faulty?
:nuts:

Regards,
Olav
Logic ? ASL players! Do you really think they coincide?
 

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
1,082
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
Hi

I am kind of missing the logic here.

Why do you have to change every rule someone might think is faulty,
just because you want to change one rule most people seem to agree is faulty?
:nuts:

Regards,
Olav
I doubt that any rule will be changed, but that doesn't stop me thinking if there's a better way and/or cool SSR's for the future...

Steve
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
12,180
Reaction score
6,685
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
I got AP4 today so we could play something with Bocage! :clown:

I bet there may be something with foxholes and skulking toooooooooooo!

or maybe we should just look for something with Pillboxes? :p

"hee hee"

JT
FWIW, JT and I settled on RB CGIII. I have never played a CG before and Jim recommended this one. -- jim
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
I never complained about not being able to skulk...that is your strawman.

BULL$HIT!

Talk about blatant mischaracterization. He said you could skulk and I pointed out that he was wrong. I didn't complain...I corrected.

Again, if skulking was stopped tomorrow it would make no difference relative to the uselessness of FH. They would still remain death traps and players wouldn't use them except in very specific and limited ways.

Skulking isn't ahistorical...you just don't like it because you don't know how to deal with it.

BTW, instead of hijacking this thread for your own pet peeves rules wise why not start your own thread on how to fix "skulking", VBMF, etc...

":hissyfit:...waaaa...you can't fix this rule because of all these other ones I don't like!...waaaa...:hissyfit:...I know none of these other rules have anything to do with this one but I'm still gonna b!tch about it...:hissyfit:...waaa..."
Well, I may have mis-characterized your post, but I still see the implication that there are tactics you want to use from FH such as skulking, but can't because you don't like the rules for FH subjecting your units to fire on exit.

You want immunity for leaving a FH in the movement phase. (Unless I mis-characterized that as well.) The most obvious use for this immunity is to use skulking, next obvious is to maneuver. Being in position to fire when the enemy moves is a good thing, being mostly immune to his defensive fire phase because you were skulking is also a good thing. Getting both from a foxhole is pushing it IMO.

You're the one throwing a hissy-fit about this rule. I'm trying to point out that you want to fix something that's broken (in your opinion), and still use a bunch of other broken rules (because in your opinion those aren't broken or gamey).

Personally, I like the rules as they are written. There is room for improvement in any number of game mechanics and rules, but that doesn't mean I am calling for version 3 of the rulebook to be a complete re-write. Or even for a drastic change to the FH rules...

Skulking is ahistorical. So is the you-go-I-go and phasing of fire/movement/rout/CC/rally/etc., but those are the game mechanics/tactics we have. Skulking is a game tactic adopted by the players to avoid the phase where the opponent is most likely to shoot and break that defending unit. (Because there isn't a move or shoot choice to be made by the opponent.)
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,837
Reaction score
545
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Well, I may have mis-characterized your post, but I still see the implication that there are tactics you want to use from FH such as skulking, but can't because you don't like the rules for FH subjecting your units to fire on exit.

You want immunity for leaving a FH in the movement phase. (Unless I mis-characterized that as well.) The most obvious use for this immunity is to use skulking, next obvious is to maneuver. Being in position to fire when the enemy moves is a good thing, being mostly immune to his defensive fire phase because you were skulking is also a good thing. Getting both from a foxhole is pushing it IMO.

You're the one throwing a hissy-fit about this rule. I'm trying to point out that you want to fix something that's broken (in your opinion), and still use a bunch of other broken rules (because in your opinion those aren't broken or gamey).

Personally, I like the rules as they are written. There is room for improvement in any number of game mechanics and rules, but that doesn't mean I am calling for version 3 of the rulebook to be a complete re-write. Or even for a drastic change to the FH rules...

Skulking is ahistorical. So is the you-go-I-go and phasing of fire/movement/rout/CC/rally/etc., but those are the game mechanics/tactics we have. Skulking is a game tactic adopted by the players to avoid the phase where the opponent is most likely to shoot and break that defending unit. (Because there isn't a move or shoot choice to be made by the opponent.)
None of the above is true relative to what "I want". You have mischaracterized my whole argument...BTW, I didn't start this thread...or even bump it up.

I don't care if the FH rules get changed...I have learned how "not" to use FH. But...

The question remains though...after all is said and done...skulking, reality, whatever...the smart move is to usually not be in a FH. If you are OK with that, fine...
 

Mattb

Recruit
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
26
Reaction score
3
Location
Manchester
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Personally, I don't like foxholes. I can see they have in-game uses. It's just most of those uses don't seem to involve foxholes having troops in them. It seems after reading 572 posts (phew) that foxholes are best used for rout paths and fallback positions.
Are foxholes really rout paths and fallback positions?

I have a mental image of soldiers actually trying to fight from their foxholes which the rules don't seem to encourage. The way it stands foxholes offer excellent defence right up to the point where you come under attack. If you haven't already left by then you're in big trouble.

I'd prefer a tweak which offered troops in a foxhole some way of getting out. Maybe a +2 smoke exponent and -1MP cost for infantry smoke - but if they get it they have to leave the hex and if they miss it its end of move.

I'm not saying its historical, or even good, just a way of letting troops in foxholes fight a bit with an increased chance of getting out again and without playing with the whole movement concept.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,837
Reaction score
545
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Personally, I don't like foxholes. I can see they have in-game uses. It's just most of those uses don't seem to involve foxholes having troops in them. It seems after reading 572 posts (phew) that foxholes are best used for rout paths and fallback positions.
Are foxholes really rout paths and fallback positions?

I have a mental image of soldiers actually trying to fight from their foxholes which the rules don't seem to encourage. The way it stands foxholes offer excellent defence right up to the point where you come under attack. If you haven't already left by then you're in big trouble.

I'd prefer a tweak which offered troops in a foxhole some way of getting out. Maybe a +2 smoke exponent and -1MP cost for infantry smoke - but if they get it they have to leave the hex and if they miss it its end of move.

I'm not saying its historical, or even good, just a way of letting troops in foxholes fight a bit with an increased chance of getting out again and without playing with the whole movement concept.
You are wise beyond you post count my good man...:D
 

B.Lizt

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
327
Reaction score
44
Location
South of Oslo
Country
llNorway
I agree.

Foxholes don't work as the rules stand.
It would be easy to fix.

It might alter balance in some scenarios,
but would make play more _interesting_ in many more scenarios,
as you could use foxholes as they are intended.
I'm more for interesting play than for balance -
if you are of a different opinion I suggest a game called chess.

Many ways to fix it;
- i'd vote to get rid of the 1MF to exit altogether, but
- combining MF to exit with next entry works well, too.

Most other suggested fixes (i.e. skulking etc.) are harder to do, and less agreed upon.

Regards,

Olav
 
Last edited:

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,592
Reaction score
2,532
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
I
It might alter balance in some scenarios,
but would make play more _interesting_ in many more scenarios,
as you could use foxholes as they are intended.
I'm more for interesting play than for balance -
if you are of a different opinion I suggest a game called chess.

I always wonder : would it balance more scenarios that currently aren't than unbalance some that are?:nuts:
 

Bret Hildebran

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
4,911
Reaction score
1,451
Location
NE OH
Country
llUnited States
I'm more for interesting play than for balance -
if you are of a different opinion I suggest a game called chess.
What? White doesn't always move first in Norwegian Chess? :laugh: i.e. chess isn't balanced, but it's relatively definable as to it's imbalance due to white moving first.

Personally I find it fairly interestng to try to find useful ways to use foxholes with the rules as written. If you made it easy to "teleport" out of a foxhole w/o getting shot, anyone could use 'em. As it is today they can be a challenge to use succesfully & I find challenges more interesting than gimme gambits like skulking (not that I don't love a good skulk, it just doesn't take a rocket scientist to do it)...

In certain situations, maybe it's appropriate to have "Hasty foxholes" with a special SSR as to how they are treated & that could be great chrome in a given scenario. I'd support any foxhole reform being used in the SSR arena and not as global changes. Particularly given how everyone on here who's dug foxholes for a living at some point in their lives (not me BTW) says they're a royal pain to get in and out of. At some point I think we have to take them for their word, although obviously YMMV...
 

Bret Hildebran

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
4,911
Reaction score
1,451
Location
NE OH
Country
llUnited States
I always wonder : would it balance more scenarios that currently aren't than unbalance some that are?:nuts:
As always in ASL the answer is a definitive "Maybe".

I'm one that firmly believes in not changing things unless you have relatively definitive proof that either:
  • you are definitely improving the situation.
  • the situation is so bad, doing something can't really hurt.
I'm fairly certain with ASL you'll have a real hard time ever proving the former in all but the most egregious instances and with foxholes I don't believe the latter to be true at all...
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,837
Reaction score
545
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
As always in ASL the answer is a definitive "Maybe".


I'm one that firmly believes in not changing things unless you have relatively definitive proof that either:
  • you are definitely improving the situation.
  • the situation is so bad, doing something can't really hurt.
Both are a fact for foxholes.
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,592
Reaction score
2,532
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
In certain situations, maybe it's appropriate to have "Hasty foxholes" with a special SSR as to how they are treated & that could be great chrome in a given scenario. I'd support any foxhole reform being used in the SSR arena and not as global changes. Particularly given how everyone on here who's dug foxholes for a living at some point in their lives (not me BTW) says they're a royal pain to get in and out of. At some point I think we have to take them for their word, although obviously YMMV...
Overall, I think this is a fine work-around. (I won't change my vote, though-- I'm just trying to be realistic and make do with what we've got.)

Foxholes were mainly useful vs. artillery, etc. Thus, an even better rule change might be to apply the +4 DRM vs. AREA fire shots?

Could be a nice SSR when the opposing side has a few mortars.
 
Top