Getting the BPV of SS AE right.

[Honza]

ASL producers seem to have a block when it comes to getting the BPV of SS AE right. BFP and AF have got it wrong. You add 1 BPV for the AE status and another 1 BPV for SS status. It is not a huge issue, but I wish there was more correct values on the back of the counters. A SS AE 838 squad should have 18 BPV and a SS AE 548 squad should have 15 BPV. But they hardly ever have.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

In the TotR module half of the SS AE have got the right BPV and half have not.

The only SS Assault Engineer MMC in TotR are 8-3-8/3-3-8, and they have BPV of 18 and 7.

I could be wrong, but I do not think there are any official SS 5-4-8 AE MMC.

 

[Hutch]

None

5-4-8 (SS)	26	a-z	TotR
5-4-8 (SS)	26	AA-ZZ	ABtF
5-4-8 (SS)	26	A-Z	ABtF (Black)
5-4-8 (SS)	26	A-Z	FB

 

[Honza]

AF released the 548 SS AE.

 

[Honza]

Klas, you are right. I just checked again and realised that half the 838 AE in TotR are not SS, which is why they have a lower BPV. My mistake....However my original post does apply to TPP counters. But MMP have got it right.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Klas, you are right. I just checked again and realised that half the 838 AE in TotR are not SS, which is why they have a lower BPV. My mistake....However my original post does apply to TPP counters. But MMP have got it right.

Good, good....for a minute there I was worried I had missed something else when proofing the counters...

 

[Carln0130]

Aren't the official BPV calculations locked in a vault at MMP anyway?

 

[olli]

AF released the 548 SS AE.

then the BPV is up to them and not
Anything MMP can do about that

 

[Honza]

then the BPV is up to them and not
Anything MMP can do about that

They cannot just make the BPV up. There are rules they must follow.

 

[olli]

They cannot just make the BPV up. There are rules they must follow.

nonoe what I meant was as it is up to them to get it correct not MMP as you implied.

 

[Hutch]

No errata listed for the counters on the Advancing Fire website.

 

[pensatl1962]

In all my years playing, I can’t recall seeing any scenario where the Battlefield Integrity rules were being used. Am I alone? Or is this more common than I’ve led myself to believe?

 

[VonHutier]

In all my years playing, I can’t recall seeing any scenario where the Battlefield Integrity rules were being used. Am I alone? Or is this more common than I’ve led myself to believe?

I used to plenty with the BI rules, made for a quicker game...

 

[von Marwitz]

In all my years playing, I can’t recall seeing any scenario where the Battlefield Integrity rules were being used. Am I alone? Or is this more common than I’ve led myself to believe?

I think I have seen one. But I cannot remember the name of it.

von Marwitz

 

[Vic Provost]

In all my years playing, I can’t recall seeing any scenario where the Battlefield Integrity rules were being used. Am I alone? Or is this more common than I’ve led myself to believe?

That is a big No for me as well, been playing SL/ASL since 1980, never used Battlefield Integrity nor saw it used in any game I'm aware of.

 

[King Scott II]

I have never used Battlefield Integrity, nor seen it used, nor ever had an opponent bring it up.

Personally, I think that it is the worst rule in the entire rulebook. Sure, the reality argument in favor of it is sound...but from a gaming perspective, it just feels like rubbing salt and lemon juice into an open wound...you are already losing and being beat up, and Battlefield Integrity comes along and kicks you in the groin...not my idea of fun, but individual results may vary.

Semper Fi!
Scott

 

[VonHutier]

Personally, I think that it is the worst rule in the entire rulebook.

That's a new thread right there ( if it hasn't already been done) !

 

[PresterJohn]

Battlefield Integrity is okay for the old style larger games with ten or so turns.
I don't see why you would attempt to use it for a six turn game on half a board with up to ten MMC per side, but it might help people play the big scenarios because they don't have to fight it out over multiple days and down to the last couple of half squads.

 

[Paul John]

We tried using it for a few scenarios in the 80's, but it was super clunky and added nothing except that one bad roll could have huge cascading effects.
Seems broken from a gaming perspective in both ways. Haven't used it since. I don't remember ever seeing it as an invoked rule in a scenario.

 

[olli]

That's a new thread right there ( if it hasn't already been done) !

oh that would become a flame war” what’s the worst rule in the rulebook” thread. Here is my pet peeve , infantry that moved in the movement phase can move in the advance phase , riders that moved on a tank that stopped in the same movement phase as the infantry cannot get off in the same hex….,,,,……………………….,………