Home Rule to regulate skulking

[Roadtogundagai]

Using the IIFT makes me squeal like a pig...

 

[von Marwitz]

Ah, but "Super Advanced Squad Leader" would be a guaranteed hit! It's all in the marketing.

Well, look at Games Workshop. They sure know about marketing. By 'happenstance' new 'versions' of the rules are incompatible with older armies, so 'alas' you just might need to buy more plastic miniatures. A pity [cough].
Eventually, people see through such schemes - or don't care to spend money.

I have never ventured into Warhammer tabletop stuff. But there is a German pen&paper roleplaying system, that has, after some 30 years or so, come up with a 4th edition of the rules which is a bit more 'simplified' than the 3rd edition has been. Might go for others but maybe not the best 'candy' for an ASLer. Despite collecting the stuff & adventures, I never bought the 4th edition rules. My world was 'complete' with the 3rd edition - in fact even more complete than what the 4th edition could inherently cover. 4th edition adventures can be easily adapted for 3rd edition play.

That said, I doubt that a "Super Advanced Squad Leader" would attract me. If th "Super" part consists of toppling central mechanisms of the system such as eliminating the Advance Phase or the Defensive Fire Phase, turning a couple of thousands of ASL scenarios I own obsolescent as a 'collateral damage', I'll rather stick to the current "Non-Super" version instead of making the transition. I am open, however, to addressing some minor issues, for example the 'death-trap' Foxholes, making the Pleva OBA rule 'official' and some such.

von Marwitz

 

[JimWhite]

...making the Pleva OBA rule 'official'...

This.

 

[gorkowskij]

for example the 'death-trap' Foxholes

Yet another unintended consequence of the advance phase that could be resolved by dropping the advance phase. Why are they death traps? Because you can't safely skulk out of them, which is a function of the advance phase.

Nobody (including me) supports a Super Advanced Squad Leader, or getting rid of Defensive Fire. Those are the usual red herrings that people throw out there when we try to have a thoughtful discussion about fundamentals. Still, the unintended consequences of the advance phase remain; they appear frequently as symptoms such as skulking and death trap foxholes. One could fix them by dropping that phase while moving its core functionality (allowing GO infantry who move only one hex to enter enemy locations) to the movement phase. This would also speed up play by removing all that obligatory counter shuffling we all do because the turn structure makes us do it. Anyway, engaging discussion.

 

[VonHutier]

This is a fantastic thread, so much information...I have never skulked, it seems. I've always played the game the way I thought WW2 soldiers would have fought...I think if I went down the "gamey" path I'd enjoy it less. Which is why tournaments for me are just an excuse to play ASL...see you at Bounding Fire !

 

[Robin Reeve]

Nothing needs to be fixed, as the sequential organisation of the game turn is an abstraction.
APh has been there for 45 years now.
Being able to enter an enemy Location during MPh is already covered by Berserk and Human Wave rules - and vehicular movement.
Creating a MPh mechanic for AMing into an enemy Location would open quite a lot of unexpected rules interactions.
E.g., the unit able to AM would suffer the Prep Fire of the preceding player turn, as well as DFF when AMing.
Very more punishing, compared with the actual system.
About no CC would be possible, except by extremely resilient units.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

...I think if I went down the "gamey" path I'd enjoy it less....

If you think it is "gamey" - then don't do it (which it sounds like you don't).....I would hazard to guess that most players don't consider it "gamey"...as always, ymmv.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Personally I consider the likelihood of the Advance Phase being removed as likely as the DFPh removed for one side...it's not going to happen....

 

[VonHutier]

If you think it is "gamey" - then don't do it (which it sounds like you don't).....I would hazard to guess that most players don't consider it "gamey"...as always, ymmv.

Yeah, I said I don't do it.....ymmv??

 

[klasmalmstrom]

ymmv??

YMMV

1. written abbreviation for your mileage may vary: used, for example on social…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[Sparafucil3]

Yet another unintended consequence of the advance phase that could be resolved by dropping the advance phase. Why are they death traps? Because you can't safely skulk out of them, which is a function of the advance phase.

No, they are death traps because too many people set them up in open ground and there is no way to get out of them without a -1 FFMO applying. It doesn't matter if you skulk or not. And guess what. Foxholes set up in open ground were death traps in real life too. Removing the APh would do nothing to address bad positioning of foxholes.

If you wanted to "fix" foxholes rather than "fix" players, allow them to be used in MPh as they are in the RtPh (i.e. A27.41: ... A unit expending one MF to leave a foxhole in Open Ground is subject to Interdiction in that hex only if the MF is expended without being combined with the MF cost of another hex being entered. ...) Now there is no -1FFMO. Q.E.D. -- jim

 

[gorkowskij]

Nothing needs to be fixed, as the sequential organisation of the game turn is an abstraction.
APh has been there for 45 years now.
Being able to enter an enemy Location during MPh is already covered by Berserk and Human Wave rules - and vehicular movement.
Creating a MPh mechanic for AMing into an enemy Location would open quite a lot of unexpected rules interactions.
E.g., the unit able to AM would suffer the Prep Fire of the preceding player turn, as well as DFF when AMing.
Very more punishing, compared with the actual system.
About no CC would be possible, except by extremely resilient units.

The word abstraction gets thrown around as justification for everything. What I'm proposing is also an abstraction. Similarly, 45 years of history does not absolve anything from criticism. Do we do everything like we did 45 years ago? What happened to my 1970s phone? "Being able to enter an enemy location" is not the core issue here. Those other instances are well known. The issue arises in this discussion because we are talking about displacing that capability for GO infantry from one phase to another; and it need not be an assault move (although it could be). What it must be, is a move of only one hex. There might be unexpected rules interactions (that's how we got skulking in the first place), but as you note, it already happens via berserk and human wave so there is plenty of precedent. Yes, there would sometimes be "exposure" to additional fire phases, but that's ok because "it's an abstraction." Also, CC often follows when the terrain is so dense (with such high TEM) that an additional shot is very survivable even by regular units. The bottom line is that the advance phase allows units to move without suffering fire (at odds with history) and therefore breeds controversial tactics like skulking. I can live with that, been using skulking myself for about 25 years now, but I can also see that it's odd and all the rationalizations offered to justify it are after-the-fact band-aids applied to an ugly sore.

 

[gorkowskij]

No, they are death traps because too many people set them up in open ground and there is no way to get out of them without a -1 FFMO applying. It doesn't matter if you skulk or not. And guess what. Foxholes set up in open ground were death traps in real life too. Removing the APh would do nothing to address bad positioning of foxholes.

If you wanted to "fix" foxholes rather than "fix" players, allow them to be used in MPh as they are in the RtPh (i.e. A27.41: ... A unit expending one MF to leave a foxhole in Open Ground is subject to Interdiction in that hex only if the MF is expended without being combined with the MF cost of another hex being entered. ...) Now there is no -1FFMO. Q.E.D. -- jim

Many times have I, or my opponent, opted out of foxholes on the edge of a wood because being in them would have prevented one from safely skulking back to a deeper woods hex.

 

[bendizoid]

i propose a go prone rule, TEM is doubled and can only attack adjacent targets at 1/2 firepower.

 

[Robin Reeve]

The word abstraction gets thrown around as justification for everything. What I'm proposing is also an abstraction. Similarly, 45 years of history does not absolve anything from criticism. Do we do everything like we did 45 years ago? What happened to my 1970s phone? "Being able to enter an enemy location" is not the core issue here. Those other instances are well known. The issue arises in this discussion because we are talking about displacing that capability for GO infantry from one phase to another; and it need not be an assault move (although it could be). What it must be, is a move of only one hex. There might be unexpected rules interactions (that's how we got skulking in the first place), but as you note, it already happens via berserk and human wave so there is plenty of precedent. Yes, there would sometimes be "exposure" to additional fire phases, but that's ok because "it's an abstraction." Also, CC often follows when the terrain is so dense (with such high TEM) that an additional shot is very survivable even by regular units. The bottom line is that the advance phase allows units to move without suffering fire (at odds with history) and therefore breeds controversial tactics like skulking. I can live with that, been using skulking myself for about 25 years now, but I can also see that it's odd and all the rationalizations offered to justify it are after-the-fact band-aids applied to an ugly sore.

Who speaks of justifying skulking?
It is in the system of the game. The game.
And the APh is a way to deal with the sequential structure of a turn.
I won't wade in the maze of your syllogisms (comparing technological progress with a boardgame is apples to oranges) and arguing that 45 years of existence require change is ignoring the efficiency of the APh (which those 45 years tend to prove).
Overturning that stability because of a personal idea is an excessive solution.
And, again, it would generate multiple unsuspected interactions with the rest of the rules, not speaking of making about all thousands of existing scenarios obsolete.
Of course, if ASL were to be made from scrap now, many different choices could be made. But they would not selected because of a grudge against an aspect of the present system.
Perhaps ATS, Combat Commander or Lock'n Load would fit you expectations better?

 

[Sparafucil3]

Many times have I, or my opponent, opted out of foxholes on the edge of a wood because being in them would have prevented one from safely skulking back to a deeper woods hex.

Which is easily fixed using the rule I quoted for routing through Foxholes. You enter the Adjacent woods hex for 3, the MF for exiting the FH spent out of LOS. Interestingly, this is a GorGor variant in the GorGor mini at ASLOk. It is consistent and you need to nothing so drastic as removing the APh.

Historically, Foxholes were primarily use to protect from Artillery attacks. They do that nicely. Personally, I only place Foxholes in "stand and die" positions. In that capacity, the perform nicely. -- jim

 

[Jazz]

This is a fantastic thread, so much information...I have never skulked, it seems. I've always played the game the way I thought WW2 soldiers would have fought...I think if I went down the "gamey" path I'd enjoy it less. Which is why tournaments for me are just an excuse to play ASL...see you at Bounding Fire !

Ah, but the game is played with cardboard playing pieces and not WWII soldiers….

 

[Actionjick]

i propose a go prone rule, TEM is doubled and can only attack adjacent targets at 1/2 firepower.

That's very interesting.

 

[Actionjick]

I recall a scene from movie about the Bulge where a GI in a foxhole is under attack. He reaches out to grab his boot and buys the farm. The film was in black and white but I can't remember the name.

Since I am bringing up movies that I can't remember the name of here is another. Some Americans in a transport plane ditch or crash on an isolated island in the Pacific. There is a small contingent of Japanese on the island. After some initial hostility between the two groups an uneasy truce is developed. The truce holds until the Americans repair their radio and rescue is on the way.
The young Japanese officer will not surrender and leads an attack where they are all killed. Earlier in the movie one of the Japanese who has been trading fish to the Americans is killed by a shark while wading in the ocean. Pretty good flick actually.
Thanks!!

 

[VonHutier]

i propose a go prone rule, TEM is doubled and can only attack adjacent targets at 1/2 firepower.

I shoot....shooting prone increases accuracy. Generally...