I cant ever remember this being a point of discussion before, but having played a couple of games with experienced gamers new to Square Bashing this point was raised.
If there is one reserve unit in a square, should they be allowed one dice of shooting?
As reservists they lose their dice. I appreciate its not a tactically sound idea to have one unit of reservists in a square, and that shooting isnt the principle means of winning the game, but I was tempted to allow it as a house rule, if only to keep players engaged in the game and wanting to come back for more!
I have always played it like the rules state ie that a single reserve unit or a dismounted cav has no ranges fire as the minus one cancels it.
As far as I'm concerned this represents their poor training, or weapons arc, and doesn't seem to cause any issues. Normally reservists are either in large numbers so can be brigaded to effect, or can be used to hold ground or provide support to good effect!I
Or outstanding damage!
Graham has it correct.
martin :)
I concur Graham has it correct, but if this is one point that makes the difference between club mates being keen to play more Square Bashing Im prepared to compromise. Of course, playing in events and such I will play it as written in the rules.
The solution is to use lots of reserves yourself Sean
Claim the "no deduction" idea and gosh they suddenly think it is a good idea.
martin :)
I have benefited from 2 units coming back to life.
In the Stoke clubs case, it will only happen when there is one reserve unit in a square, all on it's own. However, I may be more strict and tell them to play the rules as written. It depends when our next game is!
If players think that 1 dice of shooting from conscripts is the way to victory, then perhaps they are doing it wrong ;) :D
My thoughts exactly. All that discussion for a 1 in 6, followed by most likely a 4+ save :D
Quote from: SimonC on November 15, 2022, 10:31:24 AM
If players think that 1 dice of shooting from conscripts is the way to victory, then perhaps they are doing it wrong ;) :D
It is nice to see how optimistic people can be at times, though ;D
Simon
I usually only leave one unit in a square if it is holding an objective.
That was the case here, and the player was bemoaning their lack of shooting when the enemy approached. Now I'm not the most tactically adept wargamer, but 1 reserve unit on an objective, with no hasty defences, can't be surprised when its defeated and forced backwards by 3 regular units.
It is usually there to be able to claim the victory points at the conclusion. I try not to leave the single unit completely isolated. There needs to be an active front line ahead of it to also keep rear objectives secure. And yes, it does need it's defences bolstering. Surely though, continuing to play games using a particular set of rules helps one to improve one's tactics and understand the nuances of conflict when using using those particular rules. This makes much more sense than immediately going for a rule change rather than trying to understand the reasoning behind that particular rule and changing one's tactical approach as a result. Ultimately, if the thinking behind the rules really doesn't suit the way one likes to play, then change the rules being used or change period. Don't insist that others adopt a rule change simply to keep you happy.
Well said Andy.
In the words of Joe Walsh (Eagles).
I can't complain but I still do.
martin :)
;D ;D ;D