What's fair

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I'm pretty much in agreement with all that - and I need to clarify that in scenarios I play that include exit hexes, I mention my "stacking of exit hexes" rule and have yet to have any dissenters. The important thing is that folks are not blocking exit hexes by filling up the hex(s) in question, with wrecks or what-have-you.

You would have one in me. I as a player have every right to defend any and all objectives as I see fit, within the confines of the club rules. An exit hex is an objective and can be defended.

As I stated earlier if someone put halftracks or lightly armored vehicles in an exit hex and then shelled them to create wrecks than that is out of line. Otherwise defend away. I know that the sceanrio El Regimia Pass has defenders (fixed as I recall) in the exit hexes. Will you not play that scenario?

Now that the wreck removal option is in play for the matrix CS, much of this problem has gone away, fortunately. However, I still bring it up with my opponents containing exit hexes before a battle just to clarify.

Other than most scenaios to date don't have wreckers to clear wrecks.

The point about multiple exit hexes is a good one - that it makes it much more difficult to "cheesily" prevent an exit by stacking it with wrecks (or whatever). Of course, the implication that multiple exit hexes are necessary to prevent these kinds of tactics is in itself disturbing (to me anyway).

It is not cheesy to put valid defenders in an exit hex. Please stop implying it as such.

The main reason I mention all this in this thread is to let folks know that this is a tactic that someone might want to pull in a "cheap" attempt at a win, and that it seems to be the reverse of the "entry hex camping" that was mentioned earlier in the thread.

It is a perfectly valid tactic to defend an exit hex and is not cheap.

Also as pointed out earlier, it almost never comes down a battle for the exit hexes.

Thanx!