Leader location in a stack

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,933
Reaction score
2,965
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
After set up when both sides know where most pieces are guys still try to hide their leaders at the bottom of the stack while the stack is in clear LOS of the enemy. This is a bush league play that just slows the game down...
Steve
I will purposely paw through your stack just to make a point if you do this. -- jim
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
901
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
After set up when both sides know where most pieces are guys still try to hide their leaders at the bottom of the stack while the stack is in clear LOS of the enemy. This is a bush league play that just slows the game down...
Steve
Where is the requirement listed within the ASLRB that leader counters be placed at the top of a stack? If this rule exists, I would like to be made aware of it.
 

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,361
Reaction score
921
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
Where is the requirement listed within the ASLRB that leader counters be placed at the top of a stack? If this rule exists, I would like to be made aware of it.
No rule, just poor etiquette that tends to slow the game down. Go ahead and hide your leaders and make your opponent pour through the stacks that he can see. Neither you nor your opponent are going to benefit from such behavior...
Steve
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
3,350
Reaction score
1,275
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Where is the requirement listed within the ASLRB that leader counters be placed at the top of a stack? If this rule exists, I would like to be made aware of it.
Its considerate behavior and doesn’t introduce a semi-annoying, time consuming ‘shell game’ that risks stack knock over. My leaders lead from the front and if somebody tries to hide their leaders at the bottom of stacks they will quickly yet tediously find every stack the eye can see rifled through. It’s a low caliber ploy aptly called ‘bush league’. Give your opponent some credit of having at least 1/2 a brain.

If you must, keep them on the bottom until they are engaged then put them on top, next to that crucial SW they can oversee.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,933
Reaction score
2,965
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Where is the requirement listed within the ASLRB that leader counters be placed at the top of a stack? If this rule exists, I would like to be made aware of it.
What Steve said. Trying to hide them just slows down the game to have to dig through your stacks every turn. You gain nothing and risk your opponent accidentally knocking over stacks and messing up the board. You're free to try, but a good player isn't going to let you get away with it. -- jim
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
901
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
I respectfully disagree that the placement of leaders at the bottom of a stack constitutes an a example of "poor etiquette" or "bush league" gameplay. I've been placing leaders in this manner during FtF play for years now, and I have yet to hear a complaint from any opponent. We have certainly experienced far more instances of "stack knock over" from resolving Random Selections and playing urban scenarios on geo boards than we have from Right of Inspection issues. When I review my 'win-loss' record from the past few years, I can assure you that having the leaders at the bottom of the stack certainly has not given me any advantage... its just the way I like to organize my units.

When I hear any objections about this practice from my opponent (who BTW, possesses more brain power/level of education than I) or there is an official amendment to the ASLRB, I will modify this aspect of my gameplay.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
1,999
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
Yuri are correct there is no rule....but...

If some one asked you to place them at the top, after the stack and that leader became known would you do it? Or would you say "there is no rule." What if the player asked this way "as a favor to me, I know you don't have to, but now that your stack and leader is known, would you keep the leader on top?" Would you?

Note I have played over 174 different* OPFOR (not that much by the likes of Steven, Bendis or the Bishop), only 1-2 did this, and I don't play them regularly at all, or even ever again, just by how things pan out at events, so no big deal...but all whom I do play regularly, place the leader on top after the stack is known [there are exception like at set up to avoid letting players see where leaders are before pre game concealment which is super fine], 98% of those at tournaments also place leader on top after "known stack".... {this topic might make an interesting poll...where is Honza? }

I, like Steven, Bendis and Bishop, do think there is a polite feature to doing this, as well as a practical one.

As an aside, I do consider other folks touching / rifling my known stacks as bad etiquette...ask I will tell you what is in it...or I will show you if you don't trust me. I don't like this touching b/c the OPFOR may have forgotten that the last counter of a particular stack late on Turn 5 after 3 hours of play and concentration was concealed and now they rifled through and found the 548. Not cool.
 

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,165
Reaction score
2,574
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I think that requiring systematically, on every possible occasion and repeatedly, an opponent to confirm if he hides a leader under a stack of units is perfectly allowed by the rules - or can someone show me what disallows it.
I will thus play that way and I don't understand how that could be understood as bad etiquette.
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
901
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
Yuri are correct there is no rule....but...

If some one asked you to place them at the top, after the stack and that leader became known would you do it? Or would you say "there is no rule." What if the player asked this way "as a favor to me, I know you don't have to, but now that your stack and leader is known, would you keep the leader on top?" Would you?
Probably, yes. Especially if they mentioned it in such a tactful manner as in your example. I would imagine that a well-mannered opponent such as that would not be inclined to "paw through" my stacks "just to make a point".
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,933
Reaction score
2,965
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
As an aside, I do consider other folks touching / rifling my known stacks as bad etiquette...ask I will tell you what is in it...or I will show you if you don't trust me. I don't like this touching b/c the OPFOR may have forgotten that the last counter of a particular stack late on Turn 5 after 3 hours of play and concentration was concealed and now they rifled through and found the 548. Not cool.
As you well know, I will ask if your leaders are on top :D Sorry I won't be at WO for another bad accent game. :( -- jim
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,933
Reaction score
2,965
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Probably, yes. Especially if they mentioned it in such a tactful manner as in your example. I would imagine that a well-mannered opponent such as that would not be inclined to "paw through" my stacks "just to make a point".
Have we ever played Yuri? I think you'll find I post FAR more forcefully than I actually play. I do find that behavior annoying though. It just slows the game down. If we were playing, I would mention it many times before I ever got too crazy. On top of that, I would be far more likely to ask what's in the stack unless I wasn't DAMN sure I knew what it was before hand. As Andy points out, I don't want to reveal something I shouldn't know. Before I inspect a stack, I will almost always start with "Is there anything concealed in this stack". I am far more reasonable than I sound here. :) -- jim
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
901
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
As an aside, I do consider other folks touching / rifling my known stacks as bad etiquette...ask I will tell you what is in it...or I will show you if you don't trust me. I don't like this touching b/c the OPFOR may have forgotten that the last counter of a particular stack late on Turn 5 after 3 hours of play and concentration was concealed and now they rifled through and found the 548. Not cool.
With the key phrase being "rifling my known stacks", I whole heartedly agree.

I still don't see what the problem is with placing the leaders at the bottom of the stack. If you want to know the contents, ask and I will show you.

I guess the real question which I have for the players who take exception to leaders at the bottom of the stacks would be:
Why is it so important to you that your opponent's leaders be stacked in such a manner so as to be clearly visible at all times, when the ASLRB does not codify such a requirement?
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
1,999
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
Probably, yes. Especially if they mentioned it in such a tactful manner as in your example. I would imagine that a well-mannered opponent such as that would not be inclined to "paw through" my stacks "just to make a point".
And I would offer the next time we play, you can use your usual MO...then text time my MO...and so on. B/c for you that MO is important to you, as it is to me...but this way we trade off each time we play.

I mentioned the 174 OPFOR so perhaps you can see an ASL community-wide pattern.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,933
Reaction score
2,965
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
I guess the real question which I have for the players who take exception to leaders at the bottom of the stacks would be:Why is it so important to you that your opponent's leaders be stacked in such a manner so as to be clearly visible at all times, when the ASLRB does not codify such a requirement?
It slows the game down and the game is already slow enough as it is. JMO, YMMV. -- jim
 

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,165
Reaction score
2,574
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Why is it so important to you that your opponent's leaders be stacked in such a manner so as to be clearly visible at all times, when the ASLRB does not codify such a requirement?
Because it is useful information.
It is not a question of legality, but of ease of play.
There are many ways to behave without trespassing the rules which doesn't offer an optimal experience (bad body hygien, whining all the time, being extremely slow, etc.). Bottom of the line, this is a game, where people meet and try to enjoy the time they are sharing,
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
1,999
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
As you well know, I will ask if your leaders are on top :D Sorry I won't be at WO for another bad accent game. :( -- jim
I always put my leaders on top once the stack is known...even under a ? my leader is still on top. Funny you should mention "bad accent game" I was just thinking of you and how good* your "bad" accent will be given your new stomping ground. I will be put to shame as mine won't be as sharp. Will miss our games...you are always fun and a great challenge to play...and very* fair.
 

Michael R

Minor Hero
Staff member
Moderator
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
3,173
Reaction score
1,626
Location
La Belle Province
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Why is it so important to you that your opponent's leaders be stacked in such a manner so as to be clearly visible at all times, when the ASLRB does not codify such a requirement?
Just to reiterate what was already said, it is a time saver. Say your units can see five of seven unconcealed enemy stacks. You want to know which of the five stacks have the leaders. You can ask, of course, but if they are on top, you don't need to, and your opponent doesn't need to answer. Time saved. The two unseen stacks, however, have no such gain. I would not hesitate to put the leader at the bottom of those stacks.

In the past, I put my leaders at the bottom until someone told me this.
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
901
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
..... the game is already slow enough as it is. JMO, YMMV. -- jim
No argument there!

I guess to clarify my question with an example, if a leader is in a stack already under an entrenchment, with a broken, 'DM' unit and another unit with a SW, you're going to have to 'dig' through the stack anyway for one reason or another, so why would the leader's location at the bottom slow things down even more?

I guess I really don't buy the 'saving time' examples. In some ways, it appears to me that perhaps some/many (?) players prefer to have their opponents leaders (especially the 9-1 or higher quality) clearly visible so as to avoid these leaders more easily, or eliminate them more efficiently.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,933
Reaction score
2,965
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
I guess to clarify my question with an example, if a leader is in a stack already under an entrenchment, with a broken, 'DM' unit and another unit with a SW, you're going to have to 'dig' through the stack anyway for one reason or another, so why would the leader's location at the bottom slow things down even more?
In this specific case, it probably isn't too bad. As you know, for every rule, there is an exception. FWIW,.my answer would change depending on whose turn it is too.
I guess I really don't buy the 'saving time' examples. In some ways, it appears to me that perhaps some/many (?) players prefer to have their opponents leaders (especially the 9-1 or higher quality) clearly visible so as to avoid these leaders more easily, or eliminate them more efficiently.
And this is exactly why hiding them slows the game down. Because I have to locate and identify them so I can avoid them. Hiding your leaders isn't going to make that any less a priority. Hiding your 9-2 under a pile of counters isn't going to make me suddenly feel safe enough to waltz a unit into Open Ground because I forgot about him. It just means I have to ask you or find him myself before I move. And if I have to ask once, I will likely ask you over and over to make sure I have the picture in my head so I don't make the mistake. -- jim
 
Top