Stacking rules and stacking conventions

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,355
Reaction score
10,204
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
In a recent game the question came up if certain ways to stack units are legal by the ASLRB, if they are generally accepted conventions or merely widespread habits.

I'd like to have your take on this. Please have a look at the illustration below:

stacking.jpg

Figure 1:
Normal unconcealed stack.

  • Definitively legal way to stack.
  • Commonly accepted way of stacking.
  • Widespread habit.
Figure 2:
Unconcealed stack "hiding" leader and/or SW beneath a unit not carrying anything.
In VASL if there exists no right of stack inspection yet, say after setup but before game start, a HIP concealment counter is placed beneath the top unit to make premature stack inspection impossible, yet, at the same time, not distorting the stack's height because the HIP concealment counter will not be seen by the opponent.

  • Definitively legal way to stack (inclusive of the HIP "?" counter in case of VASL).
  • Commonly accepted way of stacking.
  • Widespread habit.
Figure 3:
Normal stack with a broken unit and its DM counter on top.

  • Definitively legal way to stack.
  • Commonly accepted way of stacking.
  • Widespread habit.
Figure 4:
Normal stack with a broken units and its DM counter at the bottom. This is more rarely seen. But as there may be stacks with a pinned unit and another one which is CX, one can argue that it is not possible to put all the function counters on top anyway. In the given case, it is no problem, as the entire stack is unconcealed and stack inspection is possible to clear any issues.

  • Legal way to stack.
  • Accepted, though unusual way of stacking.
  • Not a widespread habit.
Figure 5:
A concealed stack with a broken and DM unit at the bottom.
This way of stacking is certainly problematic. If one does not actually remember, that there is a broken and DM unit at the bottom and thus maybe does not ask for an existing right of inspection, the height of the stack is distorted by the DM counter (which cannot be seen looking at the top of the stack) and the impression might arise that the broken unit is actually concealed.
As broken units may not be concealed, I would argue that this way of stacking is illegal by the rules. It conceivably could be ok when playing VASL because on a mouse-over, the stack would expand and the brokie would show (provided that the function to expand stacks on mouse-over is enabled). So my take would be:

  • Illegal way to stack when using cardboard, possibly ok under certain circumstances when using VASL.
  • Not accepted when using cardboard because illegal, probably not widely accepted when using VASL with mouse-over enabled.
  • Definitively rarely seen in VASL, I have never encountered a player using this way by habit.
Figure 6:
A concealed stack with a broken unit at the bottom but the DM counter on the top of the stack.
I don't think that this way is possible, as per A10.62 the DM counter needs to be placed on the broken unit. Thus

  • Illegal way to stack.
  • Not accepted because illegal.
  • Illegal, so no habit by anyone.
So, what is your take, especially on Figure 4 and Figure 5?



Addendum:

stacking2.jpg

In the above illustration, playing with VASL poses no problem as the CX and Pin counters will not display as concealed on a mouse-over.

But how do you actually handle such a situation with cardboard?
Stack inspection is NA due to all units being concealed. But function counters do not become concealed. As a result, the height of the stack appears distorted (i.e. 2 counters too high, or rather as you can't inspect, the two function counters may appear as units or SW).


von Marwitz
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,425
Reaction score
3,364
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
All fine apart form the Broken guys under the ? counter. It works in VASL as they do not show up concealed on a mouseover but definately not in live play and I feel VASL and live shpuld be played the same.
 

buser333

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
940
Reaction score
419
Location
central WI
You cannot have broken units beneath a "?" counter.
So how do you handle the situation, either in live play or on VASL, when a concealed stack moves into a hex containing an unpossessed SW (since an unpossessed SW cannot be beneath a concealment marker either, but putting it on top would denote possession)?
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,355
Reaction score
10,204
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
So how do you handle the situation, either in live play or on VASL, when a concealed stack moves into a hex containing an unpossessed SW (since an unpossessed SW cannot be beneath a concealment marker either, but putting it on top would denote possession)?
In VASL this is no problem, as you can leave the unpossessed SW at the bottom beneath the concealed stack and manually unconceal it. On mouse-over, you will see the unpossessed SW unconcealed as it should be.

When playing cardboard, I would place the unpossessed SW beside the concealed stack. Two 1/2" counters don't really fit a regular hex but in the vast majority of cases, this works well enough.

This approach would not really work for the situation of the Addendum, though. (See OP). In VASL, the function counters aren't hidden but by the way of their placement it allows the opponent to draw some conclusions. For cardboard play, the stack can be interpreted to be in sum two units/SW higher than it actually is if one takes a function counter in the non-inspectable stack for these.

von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,776
Reaction score
7,200
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
When playing cardboard, I would place the unpossessed SW beside the concealed stack. Two 1/2" counters don't really fit a regular hex but in the vast majority of cases, this works well enough.
That is how I would handle it as well.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,545
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Alternatively, if hex space doesn't permit, why not place it on the concealment counter at the top of the stack on the understanding that this means that it is not possessed by any of the concealed units underneath? If it was possessed, it would obviously be under the concealment counter.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,776
Reaction score
7,200
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
But how do you actually handle such a situation with cardboard?Stack inspection is NA due to all units being concealed. But function counters do not become concealed. As a result, the height of the stack appears distorted (i.e. 2 counters too high, or rather as you can't inspect, the two function counters may appear as units or SW).
I see no problem/issue with having a Pin/CX/what-ever-info-counter under the "?" - one usually knows how much is in that stack anyway.

Although if the entire stack is CX - I always put it on top - if for nothing else so I see they are CX.
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
I wouldn't be bothered by any placement, provided the player answered questions about what's in the stack (and rightfully retaining any information that is not supposed to be available, of course).

That being said, I'm not sure exactly what the right of inspection rules say. Do information counters (fire counters, CX, Pin, DM, whatever) count as being part of a stack for inspection purposes? (i.e., if a stack is out of LOS, unconcealed, and under a CX, does the opponent retain the right to see at least the top unit, or just the CX?)
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,235
Reaction score
948
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
When playing cardboard, I would place the unpossessed SW beside the concealed stack. Two 1/2" counters don't really fit a regular hex but in the vast majority of cases, this works well enough.
+1 for side-by-side when using cardboard to clarify what's going on in a hex.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
As far as the rules are concerned, there are only a couple places that stacking matters. Possession/guarding & passenger/rider are the primary ones that have rules meaning. After that you can do whatever you want as long as you are not trying to pull a fast one. You can see this quite clearly in deluxe, where you are free to distribute your units around the (much larger) hex. In deluxe you don't end up with those annoying situations where one unit is CX and another is pinned and another is concealed, and you can't figure out how to stack them so it's clear which is which and not one of the others.

JR
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Alternatively, if hex space doesn't permit, why not place it on the concealment counter at the top of the stack on the understanding that this means that it is not possessed by any of the concealed units underneath? If it was possessed, it would obviously be under the concealment counter.
I do exactly this in this case. I also always arrange stacks like #4 and never like #3.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Don't try to hide your leaders please, it's not going to work and we're going to waste time when I rummage through your stacks every turn.
I stack like #1 and #3 (except for set up).
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Got to agree with Bob, it just slows the game down either way. Bottom line: Hey, it just ain't that sneaky!

As for putting the Broken guys on the top of the Stack, it just makes it easier for me to remember where they are and to ensure to rout them if applicable or Rally them if able. (At my age I need all the visual clues I can get).
 
Top