Leader location in a stack

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
1,999
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
...when the ASLRB does not codify such a requirement?
Correct no codification.

But given leaders take MC first...now is: a) your memory good enough after 4 to 5 hours of intense play to remember it is the 8-1? or the 8-0...b) is my memory? (I will say yes, but I make mistakes)...c) ok.....we all agree it was an 8-1...it was the only one to fail the MC...now you have to get down to the bottom of a stack to flip it over and place DM...vs. more easily flipping the top counter and placing DM...d) then there is the realm where we enter "okay you want to play Jedi mind tricks, just to jam me" aside from the basic "tactical sparing" we are doing which is really**** the essence of the game...

I will offer this as a counter example: In a friendly game, you have extra ? in your OB, and have placed such on a 247...I move Non Assault in LOS of that unit 8 hexes away...all you need due for me to loose my own ? is say "that is a real unit". I would never enforce the "shown me the strengths" rule. Now, in a tourney I would just b/c that is the nature of a tourney...but in a friendly never. Even on first meeting.

I have also never* enforced show me the HIP location / pre -recorded CA of AFV / tunnel exit, etc.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
1,999
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
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.
As Bendis noted above you don't want your leader at the bottom, you want him above the unit with the SW in your EX...related to A4.44 and your are the phasing player say in your MPh...second the leader takes the MC first...again play issue...we have been at the game for X Hours you sure that is the 8-1 and not the 8-0... I gave other EX upstream about MC.

I will wager 85% of us can tell you exactly what is in every stack once they become known to us and give you stack order...it is like air traffic control...this is part of the game...but you as the OPFOR you do not have to make the job of the air traffic controller harder (most especially in a friendly game) by refusing to have pilot ID transmission at the top of your flight.

Again there is no rule...you are within your "rights" to not to do so.

Those of posting about you doing so are trying to show you a wider convention and understanding of the game...we are not trying to revoke your ASLRB rights. Just saying...most play this way... What you do with your own set of OPFOR is fine. But out there in a wider circle you and your OPFOR will encounter what we have noted above. Be prepared for that discussion or WTF! or "could you please do me a favor and place your leaders on top..."
 

semenza

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
751
Reaction score
168
Location
Poplar Ridge , NY
Country
llUnited States
BS on the leaders at the bottom, poor etiquette, bush league, yada, yada, yada, crap! I do it I always have. I also place SW in in a particular order. I put broken guys on top, etc. I have a consistent order of stacking that I like. I do it that way so that I know where my own stuff is. At the beginning it does hide things from the opponent. Afterwards I am not interested in having a different stacking order.

I never found it to slow the game down in fact the consistent stacking order speeds it up ............... I don't have to look through my own stacks. For a RS roll I know what unit got nailed without even having to look.

I have played guys that change stacking order during the game and they are constantly having to look through stacks.

I played a guy quite a few times that always put his leaders on top. Drove me nuts. I had to look or ask what was in his stacks all the time. Because the leader was hiding the other stuff.

What ever is on top is going to obscure the stuff below. The order is not necessarily about "hiding" things.

People like to stack in different ways for a variety of reasons.

Poor etiquette, bush league ............................ what a load of horse shit.

Seth
 

semenza

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
751
Reaction score
168
Location
Poplar Ridge , NY
Country
llUnited States
Those of posting about you doing so are trying to show you a wider convention and understanding of the game...we are not trying to revoke your ASLRB rights. Just saying...most play this way... What you do with your own set of OPFOR is fine. But out there in a wider circle you and your OPFOR will encounter what we have noted above. Be prepared for that discussion or WTF! or "could you please do me a favor and place your leaders on top..."
Well see there you go. In over 30 years and hundreds of players of I have encounter fewer that put them on top. Just saying ... most do not play this way... So the wider convention of placing leaders on top that you speak of may not be such the convention that you think it is.

Sure we can have that discussion ................... "please do me a favor and put your leaders on the bottom so I don't have to look through your stacks to find the MG".

Truth is I pretty much know what is in every stack for both sides anyway.

Seth
 

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,154
Reaction score
2,567
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Knowing where leaders are is more crucial than knowing where brokies are.
I always have seen placing them under the stack as a way to deceive the opponent - hoping that he will forget where the leaders are - and that behaviour was clearly explained that way by those who practised it, when I noticed it in my early years of gaming.
Why make important data more difficult to spot, when it should be available ?
I don't see any good reason to that.

When playing, I won't require my opponent to place his leaders on top of a stack. But I will certainly ask where they are quite a number of times, as my memory can fail. And having to ask continually something that would not be necessary if my opponent placed his leaders on the top of stacks is irritating.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
1,999
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
BS on the leaders at the bottom, poor etiquette, bush league, yada, yada, yada, crap! ....
Poor etiquette, bush league ............................ what a load of horse shit.

Seth
I rather stand in the horse shit along side Pleva and Bishop, than play the like of you.
 

semenza

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
751
Reaction score
168
Location
Poplar Ridge , NY
Country
llUnited States
I rather stand in the horse shit along side Pleva and Bishop, than play the like of you.
I suspect that you would not feel that way if we played. Maybe we have played? Also I never said that Steve or others were standing in horse shit nor did I call anyone names or attack them personally. I know Steve , I like Steve, I attacked the idea. I take exception to the concept put forth.

I think you are missing the point.

Telling people that they are using poor etiquette, or bush league because they are not using someone else's preferred, particular stacking method is ridiculous and over the top.

There are many instances when leaders placed on top cause similar problems. By the same reasoning hiding broken units under leaders could be considered to be poor etiquette or bush league. I have a particular stacking method and I tend to find some other's methods annoying. As I am sure that some find my stacking annoying. But I am not thinking that they are using poor play etiquette because of it. There is a host of stuff that really is poor etiquette, but preferred stacking order? No.

Consistency and remembering what is in the stack has more bearing than using a particularly order. Asking someone to use a stacking method that they are not use to will slow the game down too. Because they will have to fiddle with their stacks more often than normal.

Seth

People should read my full post above not just a couple of quoted lines.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,147
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Consistency and remembering what is in the stack has more bearing than using a particularly order.
Uh-oh. My stacks end up in the order they are in because that is the order they ended up in. They aren't that way to set off your CDO, although now that I know it is your kryptonite…

Note that during setup I might put stacks in a particular order because there is no right-of-inspection, and I anticipate gaining concealment. But after setup they jumble.

JR
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
11,260
Reaction score
4,784
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
I think that etiquette and habit should not be confused here.

I do not think that one could call a particular way to stack 'etiquette'.

First, there is no rule. Second, some may be annoyed by people putting brokies not on top, others by leaders not on top. Who is 'wrong'?

Bottom line:
If annoyed, kindly ask your opponent if he minds doing it the way you prefer it. But if he doesn't, kindly accept it.

von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
1,999
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
I suspect that you would not feel that way if we played. Maybe we have played? Also I never said that Steve or others were standing in horse shit nor did I call anyone names or attack them personally. I know Steve , I like Steve, I attacked the idea. I take exception to the concept put forth.

I think you are missing the point.

Telling people that they are using poor etiquette, or bush league because they are not using someone else's preferred, particular stacking method is ridiculous and over the top.

There are many instances when leaders placed on top cause similar problems. By the same reasoning hiding broken units under leaders could be considered to be poor etiquette or bush league. I have a particular stacking method and I tend to find some other's methods annoying. As I am sure that some find my stacking annoying. But I am not thinking that they are using poor play etiquette because of it. There is a host of stuff that really is poor etiquette, but preferred stacking order? No.

Consistency and remembering what is in the stack has more bearing than using a particularly order. Asking someone to use a stacking method that they are not use to will slow the game down too. Because they will have to fiddle with their stacks more often than normal.

Seth

People should read my full post above not just a couple of quoted lines.
I think you need to read posts 60 and 65 a little bit closer and see the origins of poor etiquette and bush league.

No we have never played.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
1,999
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
I think that etiquette and habit should not be confused here.

I do not think that one could call a particular way to stack 'etiquette'.

First, there is no rule. Second, some may be annoyed by people putting brokies not on top, others by leaders not on top. Who is 'wrong'?

Bottom line:
If annyoed, kindly ask your opponent if he minds doing it the way you prefer it. But if he doesn't, kindly accept it.

von Marwitz
I have already made that point upstream...and likewise offered that if I played regularly against Yuri, I would offer to swop off "stack methods" each time we play. But in a one off I would ask that after ? is longer a factor "would you do me the favor of..." This is not for lack of brain power to keep track, I can.... it is a favor I am asking b/c I agree to the general point made by Steve and Bishop that it is poor etiquette and less than classy play.
 

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,154
Reaction score
2,567
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I do not think that one could call a particular way to stack 'etiquette'.

First, there is no rule.
That is the whole point: etiquette is not about applying the rules and is all about fair-play and behaving.
Second, some may be annoyed by people putting brokies not on top, others by leaders not on top. Who is 'wrong'?
Equating things as if they were at the same level is a debatable argument.
Hiding good order leaders under a stack has a much heavier impact on the game than spotting broken units, which are harmless.
In addition, having the brokies cover still dangerous units is also a useless way to annoy an opponent.

Why use that type of psychologicaly annoying tactics?
It is like some people openly and constantly pointing at one's concealed stacks saying "I know that those are dummies" or others who systematically ask rules questions without looking themselves for answers in the rulebook.
Nothing illegal.
But certainly annoying.
 

Pitman

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,017
Reaction score
1,943
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
In the first turns of a scenario I tend to put the leaders at the bottom of a stack not for any "concealment" value, but because it is practical, as I am quite likely to move them last. Half squads on top, then squads, then squads with SW, then leaders. Everybody knows the "movement drill" of moving leaders last (when you don't need them to speed up stack movement), especially early in a scenario. So it is convenient and it makes for faster play to put the counters you know you are likely to move last at the bottom. Think of it as combat loading a transport.

Later in a scenario, both sides have been whittled down, and leaders are also more likely to be moving with their units rather than after them, so the leaders typically end up on top of the stacks.
 

pwashington

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
924
Reaction score
204
Location
Alexandria, VA
Country
llUnited States
Note that during setup I might put stacks in a particular order because there is no right-of-inspection, and I anticipate gaining concealment. But after setup they jumble.

JR
This. Then once play starts, unconcealed leaders would generally move to the top of a stack. High counter density and things like PIN, DM, First Fire and other counters that may be added to the stack, often only to some of the units present, complicate thing temporarily.
 

semenza

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
751
Reaction score
168
Location
Poplar Ridge , NY
Country
llUnited States
In the first turns of a scenario I tend to put the leaders at the bottom of a stack not for any "concealment" value, but because it is practical, as I am quite likely to move them last. Half squads on top, then squads, then squads with SW, then leaders. Everybody knows the "movement drill" of moving leaders last (when you don't need them to speed up stack movement), especially early in a scenario. So it is convenient and it makes for faster play to put the counters you know you are likely to move last at the bottom. Think of it as combat loading a transport.

Later in a scenario, both sides have been whittled down, and leaders are also more likely to be moving with their units rather than after them, so the leaders typically end up on top of the stacks.

This ^^ . And then for me it is better that I keep the stacks in as close to the same order throughout the game. Changing the order only as needed to mark appropriately. Even then my marking has a consistent stacking order. As someone above mentioned "habit" is a good word here. Which for me translates to a consistency that in turn means not having to slow the game or knock things over by needing to look through stacks that are in some random order.

Players habits in this regard are going to be different.

Seth
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,295
Reaction score
1,027
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
The original complaint behind this whole thread seems to me to be fairly petty, but be that as it may:

Something I don't think was mentioned in the conversation above is that if I'm setting up first, I won't always know what stacks your units will or will not be able to see. So I'll probably "hide" my leaders and then wait and see what is visible to whom once all setup has been completed. I'm not automatically going to dig out all of my now-visible leaders and push them to the top of their stacks, but I'll normally do so during play just as a matter of habit.

I've been guilty in the past of "pawing" my opponent's stacks uninvited (even though there is no question that the contents of the stack are visible) so I've adopted the habit of pointing at a stack and asking what's in it, and I appreciate my opponent doing the same in return. I have no problem with answering relevant questions when asked ("where's your 10-3?") and it would be an unusual scenario where I could not reply promptly. The "time-wasting" that some people in this thread are crying about is IMO pretty ludicrous, but then again I don't much care for playing "Speed ASL" to begin with. There's a difference between slow play and considered play.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
16,404
Reaction score
2,177
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
For me leaders go on top for my convenience. I don't really care about yours.
If the stack gets concealed, I will often shuffle the order since I want some possibility of you missing the leader on a tied RS SAN roll.
 
Top