Well, look at Games Workshop. They sure know about marketing. By 'happenstance' new 'versions' of the rules are incompatible with older armies, so 'alas' you just might need to buy more plastic miniatures. A pity [cough].Ah, but "Super Advanced Squad Leader" would be a guaranteed hit! It's all in the marketing.
This....making the Pleva OBA rule 'official'...
If you think it is "gamey" - then don't do it (which it sounds like you don't).....I would hazard to guess that most players don't consider it "gamey"...as always, ymmv....I think if I went down the "gamey" path I'd enjoy it less....
Yeah, I said I don't do it.....ymmv??If you think it is "gamey" - then don't do it (which it sounds like you don't).....I would hazard to guess that most players don't consider it "gamey"...as always, ymmv.
ymmv??
No, they are death traps because too many people set them up in open ground and there is no way to get out of them without a -1 FFMO applying. It doesn't matter if you skulk or not. And guess what. Foxholes set up in open ground were death traps in real life too. Removing the APh would do nothing to address bad positioning of foxholes.Yet another unintended consequence of the advance phase that could be resolved by dropping the advance phase. Why are they death traps? Because you can't safely skulk out of them, which is a function of the advance phase.
The word abstraction gets thrown around as justification for everything. What I'm proposing is also an abstraction. Similarly, 45 years of history does not absolve anything from criticism. Do we do everything like we did 45 years ago? What happened to my 1970s phone? "Being able to enter an enemy location" is not the core issue here. Those other instances are well known. The issue arises in this discussion because we are talking about displacing that capability for GO infantry from one phase to another; and it need not be an assault move (although it could be). What it must be, is a move of only one hex. There might be unexpected rules interactions (that's how we got skulking in the first place), but as you note, it already happens via berserk and human wave so there is plenty of precedent. Yes, there would sometimes be "exposure" to additional fire phases, but that's ok because "it's an abstraction." Also, CC often follows when the terrain is so dense (with such high TEM) that an additional shot is very survivable even by regular units. The bottom line is that the advance phase allows units to move without suffering fire (at odds with history) and therefore breeds controversial tactics like skulking. I can live with that, been using skulking myself for about 25 years now, but I can also see that it's odd and all the rationalizations offered to justify it are after-the-fact band-aids applied to an ugly sore.Nothing needs to be fixed, as the sequential organisation of the game turn is an abstraction.
APh has been there for 45 years now.
Being able to enter an enemy Location during MPh is already covered by Berserk and Human Wave rules - and vehicular movement.
Creating a MPh mechanic for AMing into an enemy Location would open quite a lot of unexpected rules interactions.
E.g., the unit able to AM would suffer the Prep Fire of the preceding player turn, as well as DFF when AMing.
Very more punishing, compared with the actual system.
About no CC would be possible, except by extremely resilient units.
Many times have I, or my opponent, opted out of foxholes on the edge of a wood because being in them would have prevented one from safely skulking back to a deeper woods hex.No, they are death traps because too many people set them up in open ground and there is no way to get out of them without a -1 FFMO applying. It doesn't matter if you skulk or not. And guess what. Foxholes set up in open ground were death traps in real life too. Removing the APh would do nothing to address bad positioning of foxholes.
If you wanted to "fix" foxholes rather than "fix" players, allow them to be used in MPh as they are in the RtPh (i.e. A27.41: ... A unit expending one MF to leave a foxhole in Open Ground is subject to Interdiction in that hex only if the MF is expended without being combined with the MF cost of another hex being entered. ...) Now there is no -1FFMO. Q.E.D. -- jim
Who speaks of justifying skulking?The word abstraction gets thrown around as justification for everything. What I'm proposing is also an abstraction. Similarly, 45 years of history does not absolve anything from criticism. Do we do everything like we did 45 years ago? What happened to my 1970s phone? "Being able to enter an enemy location" is not the core issue here. Those other instances are well known. The issue arises in this discussion because we are talking about displacing that capability for GO infantry from one phase to another; and it need not be an assault move (although it could be). What it must be, is a move of only one hex. There might be unexpected rules interactions (that's how we got skulking in the first place), but as you note, it already happens via berserk and human wave so there is plenty of precedent. Yes, there would sometimes be "exposure" to additional fire phases, but that's ok because "it's an abstraction." Also, CC often follows when the terrain is so dense (with such high TEM) that an additional shot is very survivable even by regular units. The bottom line is that the advance phase allows units to move without suffering fire (at odds with history) and therefore breeds controversial tactics like skulking. I can live with that, been using skulking myself for about 25 years now, but I can also see that it's odd and all the rationalizations offered to justify it are after-the-fact band-aids applied to an ugly sore.
Which is easily fixed using the rule I quoted for routing through Foxholes. You enter the Adjacent woods hex for 3, the MF for exiting the FH spent out of LOS. Interestingly, this is a GorGor variant in the GorGor mini at ASLOk. It is consistent and you need to nothing so drastic as removing the APh.Many times have I, or my opponent, opted out of foxholes on the edge of a wood because being in them would have prevented one from safely skulking back to a deeper woods hex.
Ah, but the game is played with cardboard playing pieces and not WWII soldiers….This is a fantastic thread, so much information...I have never skulked, it seems. I've always played the game the way I thought WW2 soldiers would have fought...I think if I went down the "gamey" path I'd enjoy it less. Which is why tournaments for me are just an excuse to play ASL...see you at Bounding Fire !
That's very interesting.i propose a go prone rule, TEM is doubled and can only attack adjacent targets at 1/2 firepower.
I shoot....shooting prone increases accuracy. Generally...i propose a go prone rule, TEM is doubled and can only attack adjacent targets at 1/2 firepower.