Community

Call for Continuity & Logic in...

Jump Menu:

Page 1 of 4 • 1 2 3 4 Next

Call for Continuity & Logic in "Spotting"

9 months ago :: Jul 09, 2009 - 1:49PM #1
Grenzewolf Posts: 642 Date Joined: 02/19/07	Conducting "spotting" while being transported and the Ranger's "spotting" ability are probably the most irritating rules in the games for me. The current rules/rulings diverge from pre-established AAM precedence and realism. These were issues addressed in the Rules revision/update and to my best recollection was not how M2AO put it forth nor how those of us helping proof the drafts interpreted it before and after release. Firstly, all standard spotters have been justifiably hobbled with chatting on the radio and rightfully so. This in essence ensures this unit sits tight and takes the requisite time required to shoot an Azimuth, plot the target, raise the Aircraft/Artillery on the radio, coordinate information and data and sense or spot for the Incoming rounds, bombs or rockets. Either way you look at it 1 phase is very generous even for Immediate Suppression or CAS orbiting the Battle Field. Bottom line it is a dedicated action that now by the revised rules is considered the same as an attack. So how on earth can we justify a Spotter riding along on a transport bouncing along in a big metal vehicle (Not conducive to shooting a Magnetic Azimuth) Doing all this in less time then Trained Spotters in a dedicated FO Jeep??!!: confused: Equally as ridiculous is a "Ranger" whom by the rules is far superior in this SA than a dedicated spotter. So much so that he can perform all these tasks while running and gunning across the battle field? ...please.......... I'll address the Spotter Transport inconsistencies first. I contest that spotting should be considered "Instead of Attacking" as it fits the revised rule definition of "Results in Attack dice being rolled". Obviously if it's an air attack you get an extra attack die and in the case of Indirect the attack would not take place at all. If we simply attribute the ability as a form of attack then all other cheesiness falls away. We cannot call for fire from transports without firing platform. Transports with Firing Platform would allow spotting but only if the vehicle did not move as per the rules. Thus the FO Jeep still has value as a dedicated vehicle and the ability maintains some degree of continuity and realism. Ok, the Ranger's spotter ability is obviously an oversight as it is currently played. I really loath to debate this one and am simply dismayed it has not been ruled accordingly. The Ranger does not have an SA rather it is simply classified “Soldier - Spotter". To me, that infers all standard rules that apply to any other spotter would also apply to the Ranger. No one has issue granting all the pros but do not want to consider the cons. So essentially it has become the Elite 5/5 re-rolling UBER Spotter that rivals a Hero without quantity limits...all for a paltry 7pts!!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,rrreally,,,,,,? Exploitable combos and fuzzy rules loop holes should not have a place in a game such as this. I'm surprised there has not been a greater call to have this brought in-line with the game. Either I'm the only who feels this way or everyone else either relented or house ruled it accordingly. I'm ok with house rules but to me this is a clear breach of the core rules.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
9 months ago :: Jul 09, 2009 - 6:45PM #2
hey_yu Posts: 769 Date Joined: 10/12/04	I gave a precursory read thru your post. I might have missed some of your points. First, let me say that I'm more of a game player and agree to a certain extent for reality. I am also aware this is a game. As a game, sometimes the mechanics take away from common sense. And by adding more realism it can make the game more complex. As a result, this could take away the 'Beer & Pretzel' type of play the AAM game system provides. Going from a gaming perspective, I have two pet peeves on the rules for abuse (I've done it several times myself) and are ‘game changers’ in my ‘book’. I won’t mention the second yet. Maybe I’ll talk about it in a new thread or when a discussion opens up for it. My first pet peeve is your discussion on what I’ll call the ‘Problematic Moving Spotter’. Or ‘PMS’ for short. I’ll present my perspective by: 1.) Defining my definition of ‘Problematic Moving Spotter’ (PMS). 2.) Why it is an issue 3.) Why it is difficult to counter I understand some people might not agree with my perspective. I believe some of these disagreements may entail because some may not understand the issue. Or haven't seen it played/ played it effectively. Let me say writing is not one of my strong suits. I may not present my case effectively either. I guess I can take pictures on potential setups to help better explain. However, I’m kind of lazy tonight and think I’ve done a lot already with this post. Defining my definition of ‘Problematic Moving Spotter’ (PMS) My definition of ‘PMS’ is when a spotter can spot and then move away. Or vice versa. This is legal rules wise for the case instance with a Spotter on a Transport and/or a Ranger on foot. This has been confirmed in the Q&A: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.ph … +transport Why it is an issue PMS is an issue because it allows the player using it to ‘Strike and Fade’ for spotting the firing of ‘Indirect-Fire’ on opposing Soldiers. With the Revised Cards the increase of 8-range to spot has increased its effectiveness. This ‘Strike and Fade’ can be done either going first or second. In the most simplistic form this can be utilized by: 1.) Going First. In Movement Phase, move PMS in spotting range against opposing Soldiers. In Assault Phase, after spotting for ‘Indirect-Fire’ then move the PMS unit out of LOS. 2.) Going Second. In Movement Phase, move PMS out of LOS within spotting range. In Assault Phase, move PMS in LOS of opposing Soldiers for ‘Indirect-Fire’. This is an issue because it either allows attrition to the opposing Soldiers without the fear reprisal and/or holds opposing Soldiers at bay for fear of being picked off. Why it is difficult to counter I made a post for this awhile ago for some effective counters to this issue in the current rule set. I will list the points made in the discussion and counter/comment why I perceive it as ineffective or can be countered. 1.) PMS and ‘Indirect-Fire’ units point wise is harder to field because it uses a substantial amount of points for these units to effectively field in lower point games. Response: Disagree. Some examples of playable builds in a 100 and 150 point environments (Revised Cards). [63PT] M4A1 Sherman x3 [12PT] M8 75MM Pack Howitzer x2 [7PT] US Ranger [10PT] RAM Kangaroo [8PT] Resourceful Hero [100PT] [44PT] Panzer IV Ausf. F2 x2 [30PT] Hummel [11PT] PAK 40 Antitank Gun [11PT] Wehrmacht Expert Sniper [14PT] SD Kfz 251 x2 [12PT] Disciplined Spotter x2 [11PT] sGrW 34 81MM Mortar [7PT] 20mm Flak 38 [10PT] Flammenwerfer 35 x2 [150PT] 2.) PMS can be counter by using light vehicles to corral the spotting units to dispose of them. Response: Disagree based on point 1. Decent PMS builds will have anti-vehicle counters to prevent the corralling of these units. 3.) Use of Overwatch Response: This is a little tricky for me. To be frank I’ve only read the rules for it. Off-hand I don’t think this can be as effective because: -These rules are optional for game play -Overwatch allows only 2 units per 100PT to be placed for this. Depending on the map and position these Overwatch lanes can be circumvented. -If no lethal defensive fire is used then the unit can circumvent the Overwatch by moving in the firing lane to spot when going second. The face-up disruption will be removed in the Casualty Phase. So, it can move next turn. 4.) Use of Paratroopers/Paratroopers Response: Can be effective to take out ‘Indirect-Fire’ units if they are Soldier-Artillery. However, spacing and position of units can prevent or make the drops harder for these. 5.) Use of Planes Response: Planes can be good to take out PMS units and/or ‘Indirect-Fire’ units because they can be positioned anywhere. However, they are not cost effective and can be shot down. 6.) Use of Vehicle Builds Response: ‘Indirect-Fire’ units can’t target these because they aren’t Soldiers. I personally think this is the most effective way of dealing with ‘PMS’. However, it makes the builds rather one-dimensional and boring at times.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
9 months ago :: Jul 09, 2009 - 9:50PM #3
AH_Captain_Morevo Posts: 300 Date Joined: 09/16/07	I frankly love the ranger, however, all I have to say in its defense is that the germans have so much more cheese they can use in comparison. See, we tend to run into a few snags where I play, because one of us tends to want to play by "Realistic Rules" and I like to play by "THE Rules." We go full on Advanced/Enhances, Overwatch, Lethal DF, everything. He tends to want to add on things like "Overwatch through to X Hex in LOS" rather than "Overwatch on this Hexline." That and he only ever plays Germans. The Ranger is the one thing we can agree upon, we never seem to argue against it, he doesn't argue against it at least, and it generally only sees action in the Bocage, I don't tend to use it much anywhere else. The spotter problem we tend to have is whether or not "Moving" refers to the actual unit moving itself, or moving... at all. Because the spotter can spot and then the vehicle transporting can move, it kinda calls to question what "move" means, the unit isn't actually moving, the vehicle its in is. Honestly I don't have so much of a problem with this as I think its kinda cheesy, now normally I like cheese, but in this case I'm not sure how it sits with me. It would be nice if people played to the intent of the rules rather than the letter of them, but then certain units lose playability, and people will instead not want to risk their spotters.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
9 months ago :: Jul 10, 2009 - 6:30AM #4
Grenzewolf Posts: 642 Date Joined: 02/19/07	hey_yu wrote: I gave a precursory read thru your post. I might have missed some of your points. First, let me say that I'm more of a game player and agree to a certain extent for reality. I am also aware this is a game. As a game, sometimes the mechanics take away from common sense. And by adding more realism it can make the game more complex. As a result, this could take away the 'Beer & Pretzel' type of play the AAM game system provides.. By the length of your response perhaps you would have better understood my contentions had you read it in it's entirety. The primary position is that "if the spotting would have remained consitant within the pre-established rules frame work, It Would Have Been FAR Simpler and Consitent". So your retoric of adding realism makeing the game more complex is lost on me. In this particular case the added realism is simply a convieniently pleasant by-product of keeping consitent with the spotting rules. Yes, the Strike and Fade Spotter is rediculous. Especialy so, when compared to the current dedicated FO Jeep and other Spotters abilities and points costs. I also find that haveing to allocate an uproportional amount of resourses and strategy to counter exploitable rules loop holes to be detrimental to the game. Such rules/ruleing weaken the integrity of the entire game system and adversely effect enjoyment of play.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
9 months ago :: Jul 10, 2009 - 7:00AM #5
Grenzewolf Posts: 642 Date Joined: 02/19/07	AH_Captain Morevo wrote: I frankly love the ranger, however, all I have to say in its defense is that the germans have so much more cheese they can use in comparison. See, we tend to run into a few snags where I play, because one of us tends to want to play by "Realistic Rules" and I like to play by "THE Rules." We go full on Advanced/Enhances, Overwatch, Lethal DF, everything. He tends to want to add on things like "Overwatch through to X Hex in LOS" rather than "Overwatch on this Hexline." That and he only ever plays Germans. The Ranger is the one thing we can agree upon, we never seem to argue against it, he doesn't argue against it at least, and it generally only sees action in the Bocage, I don't tend to use it much anywhere else. The spotter problem we tend to have is whether or not "Moving" refers to the actual unit moving itself, or moving... at all. Because the spotter can spot and then the vehicle transporting can move, it kinda calls to question what "move" means, the unit isn't actually moving, the vehicle its in is. Honestly I don't have so much of a problem with this as I think its kinda cheesy, now normally I like cheese, but in this case I'm not sure how it sits with me. It would be nice if people played to the intent of the rules rather than the letter of them, but then certain units lose playability, and people will instead not want to risk their spotters. The basic frame work of this game and the revision has always been to maintain some degree of realism with-in Beer and Pretzel playability. The moveing issue should have been a self correcting logical answer if the game remained consistent. Vehicles with Fighting Platform are required to remain stationary if the transported unit engages the enemy. Why should there be any difference when concidering the spotter. (See my comments on "Instead of Fireing" as addressed in the revised rules) The original rules and especialy the Revised treat this ability exactly as though it were a fireing unit. As for Game playability and cheese,,,,, any unit that gains playability through Cheese is not a game I'm up for. This Game has almost limitless tactical growth for players over other Attrition games. Each Type of unit and sub-type can provide vital contributions to the overal strategy. With a keen eye on equitable points (much imporved since the revision) a good Player should not have to rely on Cheese to win the battle. There will always be those that wish for greater realism thus create House Rules by adjusting or adding facets to rules. The Issue here is the departure from the basic frame work and points balancing. Save the Uber Combos for Fantasy games like Magic. Speaking of Magic check out the long list of illigal Cards and Combos created by oversight from this type of game.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
9 months ago :: Jul 10, 2009 - 8:32AM #6
hey_yu Posts: 769 Date Joined: 10/12/04	Grenzewolf]By the length of your response perhaps you would have better understood my contentions had you read it in it's entirety. The reason why I made a long winded post is generally I find people won't necessarily agree their is an issue if they don't see/agree on the issue/problem. I think the increase of the 8-Range has really made this combo 'cheesy' in game play. I've been playing AAM going on 2 years. Maybe this has been laid out already. I wasn't sure because I came aboard months before the Old AH boards moved over here. By the length of your response perhaps you would have better understood my contentions had you read it in it's entirety.[/quote] The reason why I made a long winded post is generally I find people won't necessarily agree their is an issue if they don't see/agree on the issue/problem. I think the increase of the 8-Range has really made this combo 'cheesy' in game play. I've been playing AAM going on 2 years. Maybe this has been laid out already. I wasn't sure because I came aboard months before the Old AH boards moved over here. Grenzewolf]The primary position is that "if the spotting would have remained consitant within the pre-established rules frame work, It Would Have Been FAR Simpler and Consitent". So your retoric of adding realism makeing the game more complex is lost on me. In this particular case the added realism is simply a convieniently pleasant by-product of keeping consitent with the spotting rules. As far as the 'rhetoric' about adding realism can make the game more complex at times is just a general statement. I probably shouldn't applied it this post because it doesn't really apply for potential solutions laid out th wrote: The primary position is that "if the spotting would have remained consitant within the pre-established rules frame work, It Would Have Been FAR Simpler and Consitent". So your retoric of adding realism makeing the game more complex is lost on me. In this particular case the added realism is simply a convieniently pleasant by-product of keeping consitent with the spotting rules.[/quote] As far as the 'rhetoric' about adding realism can make the game more complex at times is just a general statement. I probably shouldn't applied it this post because it doesn't really apply for potential solutions laid out thus far.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
9 months ago :: Jul 10, 2009 - 9:14AM #7
hey_yu Posts: 769 Date Joined: 10/12/04	Grenzewolf]I'll address the Spotter Transport inconsistencies first. I contest that spotting should be considered "Instead of Attacking" as it fits the revised rule definition of "Results in Attack dice being rolled". Obviously if it's an air attack you get an extra attack die and in the case of Indirect the attack would not take place at all. I agree this probably is the best solution with the idea of 'instead of attacking' it can spot. However, I think spotting including the Air Bonus and/or "Indirect-Fire" would be fine as is. Also, for the Ranger Spotter. I think the 'instead of attacking' would solve this issue as well. Making the Ranger either spotting or sh wrote: I'll address the Spotter Transport inconsistencies first. I contest that spotting should be considered "Instead of Attacking" as it fits the revised rule definition of "Results in Attack dice being rolled". Obviously if it's an air attack you get an extra attack die and in the case of Indirect the attack would not take place at all.[/quote] I agree this probably is the best solution with the idea of 'instead of attacking' it can spot. However, I think spotting including the Air Bonus and/or "Indirect-Fire" would be fine as is. Also, for the Ranger Spotter. I think the 'instead of attacking' would solve this issue as well. Making the Ranger either spotting or shooting.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
9 months ago :: Jul 10, 2009 - 2:29PM #8
WotC_M2A0 Posts: 164 Date Joined: 12/09/08 Washington Rifles	Grenzewolf wrote: I contest that spotting should be considered "Instead of Attacking" as it fits the revised rule definition of "Results in Attack dice being rolled". Obviously if it's an air attack you get an extra attack die and in the case of Indirect the attack would not take place at all. If we simply attribute the ability as a form of attack then all other cheesiness falls away. We cannot call for fire from transports without firing platform. Transports with Firing Platform would allow spotting but only if the vehicle did not move as per the rules. Thus the FO Jeep still has value as a dedicated vehicle and the ability maintains some degree of continuity and realism. Ok, the Ranger's spotter ability is obviously an oversight as it is currently played. I really loath to debate this one and am simply dismayed it has not been ruled accordingly. The Ranger does not have an SA rather it is simply classified “Soldier - Spotter". To me, that infers all standard rules that apply to any other spotter would also apply to the Ranger. Either I'm the only who feels this way or everyone else either relented or house ruled it accordingly. I'm ok with house rules but to me this is a clear breach of the core rules. These are the house rules I use.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
9 months ago :: Jul 10, 2009 - 6:14PM #9
AH_Pletch Posts: 92 Date Joined: 08/09/06	I just confirmed it in the rules forum. I can't believe that officially you can Spot and Move. I play AAM frequently and (until today) if my opponent tried to tell me that the Spot and Move combination was legal I would have thought they were joking. If they had insisted on it, I don't know that I would have continued the game. I would have assumed they were trying to cheat. This is a loophole: exploitative at best. Like all loopholes, it begs to be closed. I like the simple fix proposed. From the sounds of it, that should have been the rule from the beginning (or at least since the revision). I know I'll be bringing it up with our AAM group, which will very likely result in a houserule until this is resolved officially.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
9 months ago :: Jul 10, 2009 - 7:46PM #10
Qmark Posts: 5,810 Date Joined: 05/18/02 vitriol and virtue	So a simple two sentences would fix the whole thing, huh? [INDENT]A Spotter can't 'spot' if it has moved, by any means, during the assault phase. A Spotter who has 'spotted' can't move, by any means, during the assault phase.[/INDENT] I find this acceptable.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?