recon purchase

[ecz]

I do not know any scenario where the attacker can purchase one recon dr ( E 1.23 ). Despite the fact this simple rule was never used as SSR of a ordinary scenario (at least as far as I know ) this could be an intersting option purchased by the attacker at the cost of another item in his OB or simply sacrificing an HS before the setup.

If the defender has at the same time the option to decide/purchase partially his OB, then an intriguing game of feints and counter feints begins before tha game actually starts.

 

[dlazov]

Thanks for pointing this rule out. I like it.

 

[Perry]

simply sacrificing an HS before the setup.

But to whom should you sacrifice the HS? Ares, Apollo, or Hermes?

 

[jrv]

But to whom should you sacrifice the HS? Ares, Apollo, or Hermes?

It's only a halfsquad. Wouldn't it have to be to a demigod?

JR

 

[Justiciar]

I do not know any scenario where the attacker can purchase one recon dr ( E 1.23 ). Despite the fact this simple rule was never used as SSR of a ordinary scenario (at least as far as I know ) this could be an intersting option purchased by the attacker at the cost of another item in his OB or simply sacrificing an HS before the setup.

If the defender has at the same time the option to decide/purchase partially his OB, then an intriguing game of feints and counter feints begins before tha game actually starts.

I like the concept, but....

I think only allowing it for one side, is too powerful, and too cheap..at a HS.

I am not sure how you could offer to a defender where the attacker enters all his force or nearly so,..... but allowing the attacker to gain recon like this of the defender is I think titling things too far to the attacker (esp. in small scale think SP type scenarios). Sure you could claim their dr would yield just 1 hex and this at a cost of a HS is not a good trade (I admit), but if they score 4+ then well that is jack pot gold to an attacker.

Also I think you have to put some kind of 'depth' of search concept in. The players shouldn't be able to select some hex 10 hexes deep in the OPFORs zone, but rather only say within 4-5 hexes of the 'front line' (could be defined as some hex row or hex grain or numbered hexes < 4 for example). After all, to my mind, the Recon represents probes by one's own forces which do not penetrate deep behind the lines (these arn't LRRPs) and is a different for of Recon that Prisoner Interrogation (where you might well glean info about things 10 hexes deep) or Civilian Interrogation (where likewise such info could be gleaned.

MY comments are not meant to poo-pooh the concept which I like, rather only that apply it needs to be done with care and consideration that is all.

Also the 'cost' could be weighted for example if the record dr is 1-2, there is no cost to the user, if the dr is 3-4 the cost is HS if the dr is 5-6 the cost is a squad. The Reconning player can always opt if he rolls well (dr 5-6) to say I will only claim it was a dr 2 (and thus recon only 2 hexes and pay nothing) or he could say I will claim the dr was only a 3 and pay a HS.

Anyways just thoughts.

 

[ecz]

But to whom should you sacrifice the HS? Ares, Apollo, or Hermes?

Sorry for my silly English. Not silly as the time I had to give a warning to a VASLeague player for his misconduct but I wrote something like " you are ammonited", that has to do with the ammonium and the ammonia, instead to write the right word "monition". :nuts:

I bet you got the concept as regards the HS sacrifice.

 

[ecz]

I like the concept, but....

I think only allowing it for one side, is too powerful, and too cheap..at a HS.

I am not sure how you could offer to a defender where the attacker enters all his force or nearly so,..... but allowing the attacker to gain recon like this of the defender is I think titling things too far to the attacker (esp. in small scale think SP type scenarios). Sure you could claim their dr would yield just 1 hex and this at a cost of a HS is not a good trade (I admit), but if they score 4+ then well that is jack pot gold to an attacker.

Also I think you have to put some kind of 'depth' of search concept in. The players shouldn't be able to select some hex 10 hexes deep in the OPFORs zone, but rather only say within 4-5 hexes of the 'front line' (could be defined as some hex row or hex grain or numbered hexes < 4 for example). After all, to my mind, the Recon represents probes by one's own forces which do not penetrate deep behind the lines (these arn't LRRPs) and is a different for of Recon that Prisoner Interrogation (where you might well glean info about things 10 hexes deep) or Civilian Interrogation (where likewise such info could be gleaned.

MY comments are not meant to poo-pooh the concept which I like, rather only that apply it needs to be done with care and consideration that is all.

Also the 'cost' could be weighted for example if the record dr is 1-2, there is no cost to the user, if the dr is 3-4 the cost is HS if the dr is 5-6 the cost is a squad. The Reconning player can always opt if he rolls well (dr 5-6) to say I will only claim it was a dr 2 (and thus recon only 2 hexes and pay nothing) or he could say I will claim the dr was only a 3 and pay a HS.

Anyways just thoughts.

of course it's an option that has to be carefully weighted to work properly in a given scenario. It's the basic idea that I would see adopted sometime: intelligence for units.

 

[Srynerson]

Not silly as the time I had to give a warning to a VASLeague player for his misconduct but I wrote something like " you are ammonited", that has to do with the ammonium and the ammonia, instead to write the right word "monition".

I probably would have gone with "admonished" or even just "warned," rather than "monition," which I needed to look up the definition of despite having scored in the 97th percentile on the verbal component of the SAT, 99th percentile of the English component of the ACT, and 93rd percentile of the verbal component of the GRE . . . .

 

[ecz]

I probably would have gone with "admonished" or even just "warned," rather than "monition," which I needed to look up the definition of despite having scored in the 97th percentile on the verbal component of the SAT, 99th percentile of the English component of the ACT, and 93rd percentile of the verbal component of the GRE . . . .

yes, now that you wrote it I remember better. I used "ammonited" instead of "admonished" or a similar word. Unluckily "Ammonited" is very close to the Italian word for "Warned" ( "ammonito") .
I hope that player got the concept too.

 

[Perry]

Sorry for my silly English.
I bet you got the concept as regards the HS sacrifice.

We all totally got the concept, and _your_ English was not silly.

English in general can be silly, which is what I was playing off of.

 

[witchbottles]

We all totally got the concept, and _your_ English was not silly.

English in general can be silly, which is what I was playing off of.

agreed, and English gets even sillier when spoken by americans, so have no fears.... you're well understood here