ASL 213 It's So Easy!

Joelist

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
102
Reaction score
39
Location
Illinois
Country
llUnited States
Hi!

I just tried unsuccessfully to get my friend to play this scenario. And to be honest the underlying issue was somewhat unclear wording in the victory conditions and the Night rules.

To wit, it seems there is no requirement for the CPVA to use HIP or to conceal themselves. As such, there seems to be nothing stopping the CPVA from using no concealment or HIP and aside from the one MMC they have to set up forward putting everyone else back on hex row P. The Rangers thus have to traipse all the way across the play area at night in the snow, get enough prisoners to win (as they are getting no VP from unconcealing or unhiding enemy units) and manage to get all the way back and off the board before the scenario ends.

Are we reading the rules correctly?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
One could argue that Chinese that set up and begin the game without concealment (including HIP) "lose" concealed status for the first time at the start of the game. That gives the American player twelve to fourteen VP at the beginning (depending on CPVA deployment), and should put his side on the path for a win. The scenario isn't clear on whether this is the way VC should be played, but I think it captures the intention and is the way it ought to be played.

JR
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Another sleaze you may want to eliminate: all the Chinese units exit a board edge "ASAP." They would be eliminated, but they would not lose concealment. You can add, "Non-prisoner CPVA units that are considered eliminated when they exit the board are considered to have lost concealment for VC purposes," as a SSR.

Those two patches shouldn't change the scenario as it was probably intended and will let you get on with trying the scenario on its true merits. It's unfortunate that some clever sleazes were missed, but as these sleazes have no game value (i.e. they wouldn't be used except that they were unintentionally missed in setting the VC), they should be (IMHO) noted but ignored.

JR
 
Last edited:

Joelist

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
102
Reaction score
39
Location
Illinois
Country
llUnited States
Yeah that is another problem - why don't the CPVA just run off the board?

This is disappointing as the scenario should have been rejected for inclusion barring changes as we have been discussing. I think I have settled on adding this SSR:

CPVA units MUST setup either Hidden or Concealed. CPVA units that exit the play area are considered Prisoners that exited the East board edge for VP purposes.

How does that sound?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Yeah that is another problem - why don't the CPVA just run off the board?

This is disappointing as the scenario should have been rejected for inclusion barring changes as we have been discussing. I think I have settled on adding this SSR:

CPVA units MUST setup either Hidden or Concealed. CPVA units that exit the play area are considered Prisoners that exited the East board edge for VP purposes.

How does that sound?
That's fine too, except that CPVA units should be able to exit while holding american prisoners. That's why I added that they must be considered eliminated, because guards can (in general) exit without being considered eliminated [A20.53], and it seems likely that if the CPVA took any prisoners, they would like to hustle them off to a re-education camp as quickly as possible.

Also I like to guide behavior by encouragement rather than by strict rules. There might be a legitimate reason for setting up a unit without concealment that would be worth one VP, so I would choose my version of the setup rule over yours. But I wouldn't be wildly against your version. In the end it is likely that the same thing would happen.

JR
 
Last edited:

Joelist

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
102
Reaction score
39
Location
Illinois
Country
llUnited States
Good point. How about this:

CPVA units MUST setup either Hidden or Concealed. CPVA units that exit the play area (EXC: CPVA guarding Prisoners) are considered Prisoners that exited the East board edge for VP purposes.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,731
Reaction score
7,134
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Yeah that is another problem - why don't the CPVA just run off the board?
At least they first have to gain Freedom of Movement. Given an NVR of 1, and only two SMC (MMC can't fire starshells) - it might take some time before they see anything.
 

Joelist

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
102
Reaction score
39
Location
Illinois
Country
llUnited States
MMC can fire Starshells. Leaders do so on a dr 1-4 and MMC on a dr 1-2.
 

Joelist

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
102
Reaction score
39
Location
Illinois
Country
llUnited States
Oops! My bad. Still and all you need the SSR to prevent them running away. I think the latest formulation closes all the holes.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,731
Reaction score
7,134
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Not sure I see the running away as a big problem - given that the are likely to remain in place due to lack of freedom of movement and the IPM rules.
Granted, I have not played the scenario.
 

Joelist

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
102
Reaction score
39
Location
Illinois
Country
llUnited States
The point of the SSR is to completely foreclose the issues whether they are big or not. The issue of running away is problematic and depending on things like starshells can screw the scenario up. The issue of the CPVA forgoing Concealment and HIP and setting everyone who legally can do so on hex row P is rather bigger. It leaves only captures that are taken off the East board edge before scenario end as VP sources and looking at the board with the snow actually getting all the way from A to P, capturing then getting all the way back off the map is problematic. Yes the CPVA has to set up one MMC further forward but they won't do any others logically. As the UN needs 9 VP to win they need 5 more from the people all the way back at P.
 

Cpl Uhl

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
862
Reaction score
476
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Country
llUnited States
Maybe I'm missing something, but aside from the issues above, this looks like a totally boring scenario. Why would the Chinese ever fire? Or move if they don't have to? Or do anything that might lose them concealment/HIP? Looks like the most excitement the Chinese player will have is seeing snow start on a WC DR of 10+.
 

Joelist

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
102
Reaction score
39
Location
Illinois
Country
llUnited States
In a way this is a really good solitaire exercise. Yes the CCP is not going to be in exciting play mode but then again this also is the ONLY ASL scenario I have ever seen that depicts a foundational activity of military ground units - the Recon Patrol.
 

Cpl Uhl

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
862
Reaction score
476
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Country
llUnited States
Yes, I do appreciate the attempt to simulate the Recon Patrol. But if the VC had been based only on Prisoners/CVP instead of VP for the other side losing concealment, the Chinese might have the motivation to come after the Rangers and make it fun. But I'm no designer, just a player. So if other people like it, great.
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,401
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
In a way this is a really good solitaire exercise. Yes the CCP is not going to be in exciting play mode but then again this also is the ONLY ASL scenario I have ever seen that depicts a foundational activity of military ground units - the Recon Patrol.
It is definitely a concept worthy of further possible development.
 
Top