3rd Edition ASL The Good The Bad and the Ugly

[Gunner Scott]

Hi-

Ok, some people in another thread keep talking about changing or revising some of the rules in a possible 3rd edition ASLRB. So what are these changes we might see? Will they make older scenarios unplayable in the next edition? Will these changes try to reduce the luck factor? If so in what way?

Scott

 

[wrongway149]

Hi-

Ok, some people in another thread keep talking about changing or revising some of the rules in a possible 3rd edition ASLRB. So what are these changes we might see? Will they make older scenarios unplayable in the next edition? Will these changes try to reduce the luck factor? If so in what way?

Scott

Language in Chapter E- maybe even re-write entire sections.

 

[Vinnie]

Capter G needs some love as does Chap F. Although with the vernacular Chapter F things are much simpler.

Chapter E needs some cleaning but not really major work.

Chapter A needs revised prisoner rules with the full consequences teased out especially wrt close combat.

Chapter B is largely fine with only certain terrain types needing more detail and the consequence of combination terrain needs explained although that's not too important since the map makers avoid these. Clarification of brush and orchard tracks is needed as when roads get converted these will appear.

Much of the chap C and D complaints I see more as grudge SSRs.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Language in Chapter E- maybe even re-write entire sections.

This I can agree with, the air support rules can be daunting at times thats for sure.

Scott

 

[Jacometti]

Hi-

Ok, some people in another thread keep talking about changing or revising some of the rules in a possible 3rd edition ASLRB. So what are these changes we might see? Will they make older scenarios unplayable in the next edition? Will these changes try to reduce the luck factor? If so in what way?

Scott

In my opinion, MMP should put together a War Council of Wise Men (WCWM) and give them the honourable yet daunting task, over the next 5 years, to debate and propose and rewrite the rulebook.

If I had any authority in the matter, which I do not, my terms of reference to the WCWM would be:

* Simplify (the rules itself, not the complexity of the game)
and
* Reduce/revise proven elements of Gameyness

and for the editors/proofers team
* Edit/add examples/include errata/move elements of rules around, so it is easier to find what you are looking for

 

[MadDog_CDN]

You know what, there are problems with ASL, some are big, some not.

The biggest problem is a resistance to change.

Should a broken unit be able to force a concealed unit to prove it is real? Could an AFV keep infantry from firing past it at advancing enemy?

I think it is a good game system, but there is room for improvement, starting with Chapter "D", which feels like it is not completely thought out, do a breakdown check before you spin the tank, but then you are not in motion, unless you are in your movement phase, then you are in motion....WTF? Turn your turret and drop your men, huh? The cherry of them all, an AFV (BMG,CMG) cannot declare a firelane, really, the crew is to stupid to point the gun at a target and pull the trigger, but they can drive.....carbon monoxide inhalation problems? If the MG is pointing that way, it is allowed, otherwise no.

Would it change scenario's, possibly, but so what, we would learn how to play them still given the new limitations, look at how many times folks on here have asked a question and then a bunch of folks have said; "..well that is how I always played it, guess I was wrong..." Yet the world hasn't ended, we still put our pants on one leg at a time, the sun still rises in the east.

A revision should be done, and incorporate all the Q and A, plus look at changing some rules to make the game better, drop some "sleazes" and add some new ones.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Ok,

what rules do you want simplified?

What rules do you want to revised for thier gameyness?

Scott

In my opinion, MMP should put together a War Council of Wise Men (WCWM) and give them the honourable yet daunting task, over the next 5 years, to debate and propose and rewrite the rulebook.

If I had any authority in the matter, which I do not, my terms of reference to the WCWM would be:

* Simplify (the rules itself, not the complexity of the game)
and
* Reduce/revise proven elements of Gameyness

and for the editors/proofers team
* Edit/add examples/include errata/move elements of rules around, so it is easier to find what you are looking for

 

[Jacometti]

Ok,

what rules do you want simplified?

What rules do you want to revised for thier gameyness?

Scott

I think we could debate those issues for five hundred threads and more, with the usual divisive and ugly ranting by the same of us.

The real issue is whether someone wants or dares to make a decision to go that route. If that is done, you can have a group of experienced players look at various options and consult with the audience/customer base in various ways.

I would say that those wise men would find enough lines of approach in this forum, the hundreds of good scenarios designed over the past few years (their SSR, their VC) and in their own experience of the game.

Gor Gor Heretical rules may be one starting point, but another one would be the casual observation that Control of hexes/buildings is more and more often replaced by "have no good order/unbroken MMC in an area". That has a reason.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Hi ya-

I dont think a change like building control where a non crew MMC controls the building over a SMC will change old scenarios very much. It is a good addition to a revised 3rd edition ASLRB. Of course this can also be easily incorperated into VC's too. I noticed in another thread about the Partisan use of black numbers for MG's and ATR's, honestly, I dont think it really matters what color numbers they use, for those weapons to be effective, they gotta be in the 1 to 6 range anyway.


Scott

 

[M.Koch]

Language in Chapter E- maybe even re-write entire sections.

100% agree

 

[Jacometti]

Hi ya-

I dont think a change like building control where a non crew MMC controls the building over a SMC will change old scenarios very much. It is a good addition to a revised 3rd edition ASLRB. Of course this can also be easily incorperated into VC's too. I noticed in another thread about the Partisan use of black numbers for MG's and ATR's, honestly, I dont think it really matters what color numbers they use, for those weapons to be effective, they gotta be in the 1 to 6 range anyway.


Scott

Scott, I used this example PURELY to showcase that our holy rules are sometimes, maybe even often, complex for no real reason - and with no benefit to playability. And often this takes the way of endless Exceptions to otherwise fine rules.

Once in every 500 ASL games you will have a Partisan unit which rolls a bit higher on a To Hit attempt and this exceptional rule with Black To Hit numbers at ranges 7-12 will turn a miss into a hit. Who gives a damn.?We don't need that exception, it is totally unnecessary. Just someone trying to be so smart writing the rules.

The example that Commissars may not be rallied by other leaders is another example. It is just an exception for the sake of an exception. What overwhelming historical evidence do we have that "broken" (whatever that means) Commissars were not affected in any way by the presence of a regular officer "in charge of the situation". There is no such evidence. It is just another useless exception.

 

[Jacometti]

Hi ya-

I dont think a change like building control where a non crew MMC controls the building over a SMC will change old scenarios very much. It is a good addition to a revised 3rd edition ASLRB.

Scott

I would propose to completely do away with Building Control and only use Hex Control. To Control a Building you must Control all its Hexes. And I would discount all broken units at Game End for that purpose.

Would do a lot of good for a lot of otherwise fine scenarios, wrecked by voluntary breaking rout upstairs sleeze tactics.

 

[ChrisM]

The biggest problem is a resistance to change.

.

100% agree

 

[wrongway149]

, but another one would be the casual observation that Control of hexes/buildings is more and more often replaced by "have no good order/unbroken MMC in an area". That has a reason.

Of course, scenario designers have the greatest vision for improvement.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I would propose to completely do away with Building Control and only use Hex Control. To Control a Building you must Control all its Hexes. And I would discount all broken units at Game End for that purpose.

Would do a lot of good for a lot of otherwise fine scenarios, wrecked by voluntary breaking rout upstairs sleeze tactics.

Actually, this makes it even worse. Now, you have to also clear the roof to control the hex. This is a good example of why I don't want the rules changed. They are deeper and more subtle than most think, or do you want to re-write hex control to simplify that too? -- jim

 

[koffee77]

You know what, there are problems with ASL, some are big, some not.

The biggest problem is a resistance to change.

Should a broken unit be able to force a concealed unit to prove it is real? Could an AFV keep infantry from firing past it at advancing enemy?

I think it is a good game system, but there is room for improvement, starting with Chapter "D", which feels like it is not completely thought out, do a breakdown check before you spin the tank, but then you are not in motion, unless you are in your movement phase, then you are in motion....WTF? Turn your turret and drop your men, huh? The cherry of them all, an AFV (BMG,CMG) cannot declare a firelane, really, the crew is to stupid to point the gun at a target and pull the trigger, but they can drive.....carbon monoxide inhalation problems? If the MG is pointing that way, it is allowed, otherwise no.

Would it change scenario's, possibly, but so what, we would learn how to play them still given the new limitations, look at how many times folks on here have asked a question and then a bunch of folks have said; "..well that is how I always played it, guess I was wrong..." Yet the world hasn't ended, we still put our pants on one leg at a time, the sun still rises in the east.

A revision should be done, and incorporate all the Q and A, plus look at changing some rules to make the game better, drop some "sleazes" and add some new ones.

I can just see it now a series of afvs all lined up laying down a series of firelanes blazing away with their 0 rof mgs, with bmg, cmg, and aamg all pointing in different directions.

The biggest problem is making changes to address "sleazes", personnel gripes, and reality arguements only to have unintended consequences hinder and possibly make the game worse.

 

[horseshoe]

I can just see it now a series of afvs all lined up laying down a series of firelanes blazing away with their 0 rof mgs, with bmg, cmg, and aamg all pointing in different directions.

The biggest problem is making changes to address "sleazes", personnel gripes, and reality arguements only to have unintended consequences hinder and possibly make the game worse.

WOW, thats what i've been trying to say in the other thread and couldnt come up with the right words. 100% agree with everything you said.:clap:

 

[MadDog_CDN]

I can just see it now a series of afvs all lined up laying down a series of firelanes blazing away with their 0 rof mgs, with bmg, cmg, and aamg all pointing in different directions.

The biggest problem is making changes to address "sleazes", personnel gripes, and reality arguements only to have unintended consequences hinder and possibly make the game worse.

You are right, and if this were addressed in a proper manner we could work our way through it. Though I was unaware that a MG had to have rate to lay down a fire lane. The image of a death star of tanks is sobering, though that should not discount them being allowed fire lanes. I would even go so far as saying a CE tank could join a FG, within it's hex, with it's MG's, or even restrict it to just the AAMG.

 

[Jacometti]

Actually, this makes it even worse. Now, you have to also clear the roof to control the hex. This is a good example of why I don't want the rules changed. They are deeper and more subtle than most think, or do you want to re-write hex control to simplify that too? -- jim

What percentage of scenarios has Rooftops in play, Jim ?

I was giving an example of my own problems with the rules, which refer to the nonsense of a dead army winning a scenario.

I think some folks just stand ready to jump in and try to tell us how wonderfully deep and complex and perfect those rules are, regardless of the example.

Those same people were happy to play a Bridge TEM of -1 for about a year, until Perry told us to revert back to 0.

Was that deep and subtle, too ?

 

[koffee77]

What percentage of scenarios has Rooftops in play, Jim ?

I was giving an example of my own problems with the rules, which refer to the nonsense of a dead army winning a scenario.

I think some folks just stand ready to jump in and try to tell us how wonderfully deep and complex and perfect those rules are, regardless of the example.

Those same people were happy to play a Bridge TEM of -1 for about a year, until Perry told us to revert back to 0.

Was that deep and subtle, too ?

Who has said the rules are perfect?