I guess we are stuck with it, but I wonder if designers might consider just going with a zero SAN in the future.
Everyone has their opinion, but to me:
1) SAN slows things down
2) SAN makes scenarios dicy-er (for little benefit I think)
3) It really doesn't seem the way snipers would influence the battlefield (while admitting never being on one)
4) In some cases it makes sense to put a half-squad in the open or low TEM areas. Hardly good tactics.
my opinions:
1) Every thing, rule, or event slows things a bit. Also MC due to attacks or vehicles with many MPs slow the game. Besides I think it avoids an huge number of attacks rolled just because you could get a PTC rolling 1,1 or 1,2.
2) I can hardly imagine a scenario "dicey" just because the sniper. If it is dicey it is because it is poorly designed in general.
3) never joined a WWII battle, so I do not have an opinion. For what I have seen and read I think that it is fairly realistic or, putting it in another way, there are things in ASL that influence the battlefield in a wrong direction muc much more (first of all the lack of fog of war) .
4) I love this "countermisure". I see the HS sent in the open not like a target to absorb bullets, but as a team with the specific task to neutralize the enemy snipers.
and in general:
-Sniper management is one of the camps where easily better players gain an edge over inexperienced players, of course statistically and in a long run, then it should be welcome;
-an higher SAN usually makes scenarios more exciting;
- I have playested a scenario where SAN (reduction) become a tactical objective, since the attacker can/could divert units to seize the rooftops of a factory to drop permanently the enemy SAN from 5 to 2 adding a very interesting dimension to the scenario. Creative use of the SAN can make the difference in scenario design.
All in all it is one of my favorite rules and the change that impressed me more during the transition from SL/CoI to ASL.