ASL Scandinavian Open 2009 scenario list

[KevinG]

yeh not sure i agree with that, at least from what little one can gather from the VC as written

 

[klasmalmstrom]

yeh not sure i agree with that, at least from what little one can gather from the VC as written

Here is the original VC:

MISSION: The British win at game end if they control >= 5 stone building
hexes on/between hexrows U and Y with a (non-vehicular crew counter) MMC.

This I would interpret as if the British need a non-vehicular crew counter MMC to gain Control. Although the British control all the relevant hexes from the start so it would only be an issue if/when they need to regain Control from the German.
There are no limitation (beyond the normal Control rules) of what type of unit the German can gain Control with. Whether this is the intention or not one can wonder - the original VC text isn't very well written IMO.

The ASO VC text reads:
New Mission; “ The British win at game end if they control at least 5 stone building hexes on/between hexrows U and Y. Dismounted British Vehicular Crews may not gain control of Building hexes”

This new VC text does not hinder British Vehicles from gaining Control.

 

[KevinG]

wasnt saying i disagreed with you Klas (if that is what it sounded like)... was disagreeing with the interpretation that British vehicles can get control.

 

[James Taylor]

If you disregard from the rule below then your opinion would be more valid,
SSR (Scenario Special Rules): Always takes precedence over Game System Rules

so if the word "always" had been added to the SSR-sentence would that have been enough (= gone further) in your opinion?


Yes, and I do understand that they don´t take responsibility for designs that they sell, if they did they would issue at least 50 Errata/clarifications to their 200 scenarios that have been released throughout the years.
H. Downing proclaim that the sentence is a simple reminder of the Game System Rule and also state in a previous post (see rule section) that his writing should never be seen as an errata (since he is NA to make any).

Brought the question forward since we believed that it was poorly written
regardless of the meaning of the sentence and it has now been deleted as
a House rule during the tournament (only).

The word *always* being added would lend weight to your interpretation I would agree, but a better choice would be "even as the Defender". (Although the mechanics of such I think I would still find *irksome*).

I would also agree that the SSR without the "that are not ambused" would have been better, but as SSR go I've seen a lot worse in both official and 3rd party products.

I'm further inclinded to agree with your opinion of Schwerpunkts "no errata" policy, but I'm not sure potentially unbalancing a tournament scenario choice would be the best venue for protest.

There are some other mechanisms... say for example posting your own list of errata for their scenarios. If the errata are good, players will use them... because that is how we are. (Just like players starting to use the RB house rules that originated in Sweden, I believe). We won't care if they've got the SP stamp of approval. You may not want to do that... as you would be improving their product without getting any reward... but at the same time it would certainly accentuate the *need* for such errata.

Just my .02.

JT

 

[Hugh Downing]

Hello all, sorry for the confusion with the SSR in Tanks but no Tanks that granted Hand-To-Hand ability to Polish elite and 1st line squads per rule J2.31. The word ‘ambush’ did not come up as a problem in our or our out side play test group.

I was going to reference that rule again in one of my upcoming scenarios. I will make sure that it is cleaner.

Hugh

 

[Stacks]

Thanks Hugh,
that will make it easier for us in future tournaments, anyhow 2 of your scenarios are among
the 15 available in the tournament and many players will have them as their first or second
choice (me included), despite some unclear writing on the scenario cards.

 

[Stacks]

The Tournament directors claim that the British OML 3-Inch 76mm MTR has an errata in Journal 7 page 36 that explains that this MTR should be considerd to have a calibre of 81mm and therby should grant it to use the 8 FPc.

As I see it, this is not an errata but rather a suggestion made in the article and to my understanding the weapon should have a calibre greater than 76mm, but it should still only be allowed to use the 6 FPc since the British suffered from poor shell-production (bigger shell to compensate for bad design + material).

The (same) Journal 7 (and also Journal 6) have excellent articles (if you are interested) about the problems the British faced after their declaration of war to the German 3rd Reich. Then in the British Vehicle notes page H49 & H72 also mention problems they had with ammunition production and design.

The only errata I would prefer (although, ain´t really needed since it would not change anything) is a new MTR counter with a larger calibre size printed on the counter and a new Ch. H note reading:
"Despite its calibre it only use the 6 FPc (or 24FPc for CH and sometimes the 2 FPc versus certain terrain types)."

 

[hastrup]

Kevin - no problem in using the clarifications from the ASO page.

Looks like I have to go through "Cornwall's rum ration" clarifications again, both the British MTR again - and the VC. I will be back.

Michael

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Kevin - no problem in using the clarifications from the ASO page.

Looks like I have to go through "Cornwall's rum ration" clarifications again, both the British MTR again - and the VC. I will be back.

If the intention is that only non-vehicular crews should be able to gain Control of the building hexes then I propose this solution:

VC:
MISSION: The British win at game end if they Control (see SSR 6) >= 5 stone building hexes on/between hexrows U and Y.

New SSR:
6. Only non-vehicular crew MMC can gain Control of Building hexes.

(BTW, this scenario has an error - there are two SSRs numbered 4.)

 

[KevinG]

Melvin made this point

Scenario - DB #67 Let´s Dance
Special Rules:
2. ..... crest lines run along overlay hexsides and do not block LOS to/from
Level -1 Locations...
-------------------------------------
Special Rules:
2. ..... crest lines run along overlay hexsides (or part of it) adjacent to
elevation below ground level and the exterior of these overlay hexsides
(or part of overlay hexsides) is considered to not exist....

Now they have made an interresting change to the scenario that reads
.......All hexes of overlay Wd5 are at level -1.......
__________________

but I didnt see a reply. I dont have the card with me, whats the problem with the original wording?

 

[Stacks]

see below, some double post happened.

 

[Stacks]

Melvin made this point

Scenario - DB #67 Let´s Dance
Special Rules:
2. ..... crest lines run along overlay hexsides and do not block LOS to/from
Level -1 Locations...
-------------------------------------
Special Rules:
2. ..... crest lines run along overlay hexsides (or part of it) adjacent to
elevation below ground level and the exterior of these overlay hexsides
(or part of overlay hexsides) is considered to not exist....

Now they have made an interresting change to the scenario that reads
.......All hexes of overlay Wd5 are at level -1.......
__________________

but I didnt see a reply. I dont have the card with me, whats the problem with the original wording?

The main reason to write the suggested SSR is that you may claim that
a LOS exist between ground level V5 to T5 and R5 (also be able to see
hexside between S5-S6). The second (much less) reason is to make it clear
to the less experienced players that there is no crest lines between hexes
(for example) W7 and X6 (i.e., abrupt level doesn´t exist there, believe that the rules
support this, but as stated simple make it clear in the SSR so no rule search would be needed).

Although maybe this is a change, the designer maybe liked it to be a LOS between these locations,
but as written in the beginning, I believe it was not the intent (sure, I´m only guessing).

 

[KevinG]

so was

> Now they have made an interresting change to the scenario that reads
> .......All hexes of overlay Wd5 are at level -1.......

something that is inferred from the current wording in the clarification, or an official change made by DftB?

 

[Stacks]

so was

> Now they have made an interresting change to the scenario that reads
> .......All hexes of overlay Wd5 are at level -1.......

something that is inferred from the current wording in the clarification, or an official change made by DftB?

Kevin,
I has no idea, why this change was made since it clearly change the
design of the scenario, maybe they could answer why? this change was
made.

 

[KevinG]

but who actually has made this change... i am thoroughly confused...

 

[Ronnblom]

It's a bad idea to change the scenario at this time, IMHO. Clarifications are one thing, but this isn't.

 

[Stacks]

....Looks like I have to go through "Cornwall's rum ration" clarifications again, both the British MTR again - and the VC. I will be back.

Michael

Would suggest that you or Kevin use the VCs below, otherwise a few players might claim that the Carrier Inherent crew (2-4-8 HS) is NA to gain Control of building hexes.
---------------------------------------------------
VICTORY CONDITIONS:
The British win at game end if they Control at least 5 stone building hexes
on/between hexrows U and Y. Dismounted 1-2-7 Vehicular crews may not
gain Control of building Hexes.

 

[Stacks]

Michael, for the scenario A60 TOTSUGEKI! maybe you should Replace the VCs with the following (that we believe is the designer´s intent although you could easily twist the meaning of the Victory Conditions), trying to agree with the opponent to change the meaning of the original VCs is - well, a waste of time...

Clarified VCs
Victory Conditions: The Japanese win at game end if all
three 75mm Guns are eliminated/captured/in hexes with at least
one Good Order Japanese MMC and no armed Chinese unit(s).
----------------------------------------------
Original VCs
Victory Conditions: The Japanese win if at game end all
three Chinese 75mm Guns are eliminated/captured/ or in hexes
occupied solely by Good Order Japanese MMC.

 

[Stacks]

Have made one single WORD-document page to our groups of players.
This single page will contain all the ABS and ASO SSR /Clarifications.

Now it should be appreciated if you could confirm and clarify the ABS by simple agreeing (or not) with what is suggested below.
(The written text on the ASO site = suggested clarification of its intent).

RPT25 Cornwall´s Rum Ration
G1 Add 6x ? to British OB = Add 6x ? to the British on-board force.

AP31 First Cristot
G1 Add a 2-4-7 to the British OB = Add a 2-4-7 HS to the British Infantry force.
B1 Add a 3-4-8 to German OB = Add a 3-4-8 HS to the German Infantry force.

FrF30 Bidermann´s Escape
G1 Add a 2-2-8 crew to Russian OB = Add a 2-2-8 crew to the Russian on-board force.

SP80 Die Gurkha Die!
G2 Add a DC to Japanese OB = The Japanese player may add a DC to his OB.

AP37 Apples to Apples
A1 Add a 348 to the German OB = Add a 3-4-8 HS to the German Infantry force.

DB67 Let´s Dance
B3 Add a 3-3-8 to the German OB = Increase the number of 3-3-8 HS by one in the German OB.

FrF29 Sting of The Italian Hornet
C1 exchange two 3-4-6 for two 4-4-7 in Italian OB = Italian player replace any two Italian 3-4-6 squads with two 4-4-7.

SP164 Tanks But No Tanks
P1 delete a LMG from Polish OB = The Polish player delete one LMG from his OB.
P2 exchange two 4-5-8 to two 4-5-7 in Polish OB = Polish player replace two Polish 4-5-8 squads with two 4-5-7.

FrF26 A Polish Requiem
G2 exchange any three 4-5-7 for three 4-5-8 in Polish OB = Polish player replace three Polish 4-5-7 squads with three 4-5-8.

 

[hastrup]

uhm.... seems like my clarifications didn't clarify everything that well ... so I appreciate your help to get things ... clear.

So where do I start.. Mel, I can't see any real difference between your wordings and mine except for Die Gurkha Die, where your wording " may add a DC" would allow the Japanese player not to include the DC in his OB .

Cornwell's Rum Ration; I was under the impression that the MTR rule was a erratta, but if it isn't then the clarification should be deleted. Regarding the VC then it wasn't my plan to change it, I just plainly forgot about the tanks ability to gain hex control. I will change the wording.

Totsugeki; I can see that there might be a problem with the original VC if the Japanse player also have a SMC in the hex, but does your clarification take into consideration that a Japanese MMC retaining ? will be Good Order even if there was Chinese units in the hex after CC is resolved?

Lets Dance; I think the wording suggested by Mel about crest line LOS is more clear, but the "all hexes of overlay Wd 5 is at level -1" came from Klas and my playing of the scenario. That is the way we played it, and I can see now that it isn't right. Hex T9 and S10 is at level 0. So where does the crestline go between -1 and 0 then, along the hexspine S10/S9, S9/T9 and T8/T9 ?

any other problems ?

thanks

Michael