Crews for 1/2" SW counters

[jwb3]

Are youse guys hijackin' dis thread?

Not intentionally... :halo:

I realized after I had finished writing that example involving bad driving that I really should have used some kind of ASL example, instead! :shy:

OTOH, I think we might be running out of on-topic things to say. I could point out that I pretty much agree with what Will said... but I think you all probably figured that out on your own.


John

 

[A/CSM Bird]

Not intentionally... :halo:

I realized after I had finished writing that example involving bad driving that I really should have used some kind of ASL example, instead! :shy:

OTOH, I think we might be running out of on-topic things to say. I could point out that I pretty much agree with what Will said... but I think you all probably figured that out on your own.


John

I agree, it has been a good discussion though.

To keep the topic going I'd like to explore what any of you would consider abuses of extra crews in scenarios or CG's, if any.

There has been mention of using them as self rallying flankers, DC chuckers, concealment strippers, rather than manning SW. None of those uses I would necessarily consider as abuse per se.

What do you guys think?

 

[commissarmatt]

I really dislike it when a scenario has the SSR that certain weapons must be crew served or else suffer a penalty. In fact, I tend to avoid those scenarios. I prefer it when the game is not tweaked any more. Haven't we had enough realism arguments regarding various aspects of ASL already? Can't we just play the game as written?

Wolkster, your point about getting 2 extra squads in your maneuver group is well taken. However, consider that if those two squads were manning the machine guns, you'd have 2 extra crews in your maneuver group. They wouldn't have as much firepower, but they could self rally, a potentially very important ability.

I'm not sure how I would use extra crews. It really depends on the situation.

 

[trevpr1]

In scenarios where I've been given extra crews, especially in defence, I will use them for SW. But I'll also make sure that my guns are also considered. Nothing quite as handy as a spare crew six MP+1 hex away to keep that AT gun working by the start of your opponent's next turn...

 

[jwb3]

I agree, it has been a good discussion though.

True!

To keep the topic going I'd like to explore what any of you would consider abuses of extra crews in scenarios or CG's, if any.

There has been mention of using them as self rallying flankers, DC chuckers, concealment strippers, rather than manning SW. None of those uses I would necessarily consider as abuse per se.

What do you guys think?

If the scenario does not give any indication that they are to be used for a specific purpose, then I can't think of anything I'd consider abusive. That bit in A1.123 about how they can be considered to also represent "picked men who are the best of their company" really covers just about any possible 'evil'.

Mind you, I don't think that a unit with a 2 range represents those guys any more accurately than I think a unit with self-rally and elite status and +1 CCV represents SW teams accurately. But at least the rulebook gives us a "reality excuse" for using the counter in any creative way we can come up with.


John

 

[Jim McLeod]

I really dislike it when a scenario has the SSR that certain weapons must be crew served or else suffer a penalty. In fact, I tend to avoid those scenarios.

You mean like those scenarios with ATGs where you are 'forced' to use a 2-2-8 to man those Guns. You could always use a squad or a HS ...

 

[commissarmatt]

Uh, no Jim, crews for antitank guns are part of the rules themselves. So is the Japanese crew served SW rule. I have no problem with either of those. I'm just saying I don't like the SSR that imposes the Japanese rule on other troops, and I tend to avoid those scenarios, that's all. It's not a huge deal with me, but with so many scenarios to choose from I'd just rather look elsewhere, voting with my dice as it were.