Can a unit dismantle a weapon in prep fire and move?

[Bill Kohler]

However if you play in a tournament beware that these sleazes are out there and can be used against you.

And if you use sleazes that (in someone's mind) borders on cheating, they may decline to play you in the future. Or they may decline to come to future tournaments altogether.

 

[Actionjick]

And if you use sleazes that border on cheating, beware that some players may decline to play with you in the future. Or they may decline to come to future tournaments altogether. . . . (How much is that win worth to you?)

Good advice. But there are some players who put winning above comraderie and good sportsmanship. Hopefully their numbers are declining.

 

[The Purist]

Absolutely,... and many are not easy to implement. As a rule I dislike all the sleaze 'rules' (from VBF on down the list) but have had them used against me countless times, both in tournaments and in regular games. Over time I have come to accept them as part of the game.

One type is constantly used. This is the routing of broken units to create a "line of brokies" to prevent Location/Building control at/near game end. Normally, one would expect broken units to route as far away as possible so they could be rallied but the game does not prevent this particular move. It is, perhaps, less egregious than some sleaze but still isn't in the spirit of what routing is supposed to be used for. Yet A26.11 has broken units denying control to GO enemy units (despite the obvious logic flaw).

EDIT: Which may be why we see SSRs include only GO units counting in some victory conditions.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Rules knowledge is your best defense against sleaze, real and imagined.

It is also your greatest defense against OBA. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

And if you use sleazes that border on cheating, beware that some players may decline to play with you in the future. Or they may decline to come to future tournaments altogether. . . . (How much is that win worth to you?)

Should we play the game or re-write the rules to suit the deniers? Honest question. There are many things I don't like about ASL, but the only thing we have to fall back on is the rule book and Q&A. I get as pissed as the next person when someone sleazes me with something I have not seen before. It feels like we aren't playing the same game. Having said that, I have walked into games with a wrong understanding of the rules--which when explained--makes perfect sense. We still weren't playing the same game there either.

Personally, I would rather you stay and play. I will often take the time to explain why I am doing what I am doing so you can learn from it. If you chose to deny your self some great comradery and a opportunities to play, I will be sad, but you have to make your own choices. -- jim

 

[von Marwitz]

It is also your greatest defense against OBA. -- jim

Oh so true...

Hardly anyone groks OBA without the flowchart (including me). And even with it, there are some particulars (which I don't claim to be aware of in detail).

Add to that the 'voluntary'/'involuntary' loss of Contact stuff for keeping the shells blowing up or not or to move your Observer, and you have lost everyone - at least without a thorough rules dive.

von Marwitz

 

[Sparafucil3]

Oh so true...

Hardly anyone groks OBA without the flowchart (including me). And even with it, there are some particulars (which I don't claim to be aware of in detail).

Add to that the 'voluntary'/'involuntary' loss of Contact stuff for keeping the shells blowing up or not or to move your Observer, and you have lost everyone - at least without a thorough rules dive.

von Marwitz

To me, the real challenge for most folks is the conversion of an SR to an FFE:1. Holding people to just that can make OBA a challenge. -- jim

 

[Actionjick]

Should we play the game or re-write the rules to suit the deniers? Honest question. There are many things I don't like about ASL, but the only thing we have to fall back on is the rule book and Q&A. I get as pissed as the next person when someone sleazes me with something I have not seen before. It feels like we aren't playing the same game. Having said that, I have walked into games with a wrong understanding of the rules--which when explained--makes perfect sense. We still weren't playing the same game there either.

Personally, I would rather you stay and play. I will often take the time to explain why I am doing what I am doing so you can learn from it. If you chose to deny your self come great comradery and a opportunities to play, I will be sad, but you have to make your own choices. -- jim

The issue of sleaze depends, at least IMO, upon the lens with which you view ASL. Are you a gamer, a WWII historical simulator or some blend of the two?
Those who are primarily gamers might be more inclined to view sleaze as part of the game, to be used or abused as circumstances permit.

To those who consider the game primarily an historical simulation sleaze is a stain upon the system.

I tended to be a gamer with a deep interest in WWII. Squad Leader grabbed me mainly because it was a great game that just happened to be set in WWII. As far as I was concerned it was the mechanics of the system that had the greatest appeal. This was exemplified in a post of mine from a few years ago, Space Guards Counterattack. There I maintained that if you left all the units, rules and boards the same but just changed some terminology and narratives and set it in the future SL/ASL would still be a great game. This heretical thought was thoroughly shot down!! Lol. Well there you are, so much for thinking outside of the box.

I can't speak for the original designers but it's my impression that they viewed and developed it more as a game than an extremely accurate simulation. Hence some of the sleaze. Plus it's been over 35 years people have had to dissect the system and discover it's flaws, discrepancies, inconsistencies, inaccuracies and inadequacies. All in all those original designers and playtesters did a great great job, IMHO, and I'm grateful for their efforts. They gave me thousands of hours of great gaming and comradeship.

 

[von Marwitz]

The issue of sleaze depends, at least IMO, upon the lens with which you view ASL.

Those who are primarily gamers might be more inclined to view sleaze as part of the game, to be used or abused as circumstances permit.

To those who consider the game primarily an historical simulation sleaze is a stain upon the system.

I think this hits the nail on the head exactly.

As with other things, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' view about this. The same for playing 'fast' or 'slow', the 'IFT' or 'IIFT'. The list could go on.

The important thing to see is that the ASL system is versatile enough, to cater to any of these and work just splendid.

What it can't do is to reconcile diametral views of some of its players about which one of these aspects is the 'best' or 'correct' way to handle these things for everybody. In this regard, people from either side need patience and tolerance or else remain amongst those of matching views.

von Marwitz

 

[Actionjick]

I think this hits the nail on the head exactly.

As with other things, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' view about this. The same for playing 'fast' or 'slow', the 'IFT' or 'IIFT'. The list could go on.

The important thing to see is that the ASL system is versatile enough, to cater to any of these and work just splendid.

What it can't do is to reconcile diametral views of some of its players about which one of these aspects is the 'best' or 'correct' way to handle these things for everybody. In this regard, people from either side need patience and tolerance or else remain amongst those of matching views.

von Marwitz

Well put Sir! An extra bottle of Chateau de Jick for you if we ever meet!

 

[Chris Bryer]

There are no 'simulations of combat'. There is just combat and a game that represents combat.

ASL is a game that reps combat and it does it very well (even with it's warts)

Every game has this sort of 'innacuracy' because it is impossible to actually be accurate.

Just my opinion.

 

[The Purist]

Well, I come down on the side of "fix what can be fixed and live with rest". In my view realism does not have to be surrendered if other options exist that don't bog an already complex game down in overly detailed rules.

You can't really do much about skulking or an unarmed truck overrun but the VBM freeze could be 'fixed' by an update similar to DN11 (from the Dinant CG) or allowing it only if the vehicle is carrying Passengers/Riders who must be unloaded into the Location (sort of a PanzerBlitz Assault for those who remember Panzer Blitz and Panzer Leader ).

One could replace the free shot for no APCR/APDS by simply noting the gun will fire another declared ammunition type if the DR is above the depletion number. It really doesn't make sense that the shot doesn't count but the gun could still break.

These days SSRs are used to un-sleaze some actions such as using vehicle crews to gain control of a building by abandoning a perfectly good AFV. Some other sleaze could likewise be weakened in this manner.

 

[Robin Reeve]

We all have our pet peeves about the rules.
I will not start a debate about the different vulnerability of leaving a Foxhole during MPh, the RtPh or the APh...
Many "quirks" in the rules are directly linked to (the list is non exhaustive) :

• the sequential game turn (time is managed quite differently than in "real time" conditions)
• the representation of terrain on a hex grid (and with standard terrain rules)
• the original choices of unit values (MF, MP, FP, morale, etc.)
• the probabilities of 2d6 (a SW jams once in 36 times: where did that probability come from?)
• the techniques to reduce the players' omniscience
• ...

So I will use any trick allowed by the system, as this is a game and not

Spoiler: Dare you read this (click bait) 😛

(God be bessed: I am a non violent anabaptist Christian anarchist)

a simulation of real combat.

 

[Chris Bryer]

We all have our pet peeves about the rules.
I will not start a debate about the different vulnerability of leaving a Foxhole during MPh, the RtPh or the APh...
Many "quirks" in the rules are directly linked to (the list is non exhaustive) :

• the sequential game turn (time is managed quite differently than in "real time" conditions)
• the representation of terrain on a hex grid (and with standard terrain rules)
• the original choices of unit values (MF, MP, FP, morale, etc.)
• the probabilities of 2d6 (a SW jams once in 36 times: where did that probability come from?)
• the techniques to reduce the players' omniscience
• ...

So I will use any trick allowed by the system, as this is a game and not

Spoiler: Dare you read this (click bait) 😛

(God be bessed: I am a non violent anabaptist Christian anarchist)

a simulation of real combat.

I hate foxholes. Thank you.

 

[Bill Kohler]

There are pure games where mechanics is everything and theme is nothing: Chess, Checkers, Go. ASL is not this.

There are simulations used in military science to accurately model the outcome of battles and the effectiveness of weapon systems. ASL is not this.

There are game simulations that seek to represent a military situation to a high degree of fidelity: ASL is not this.
Someone recently on BGG was discussing how ASL treated U.S. 75 mm rounds and 76 mm rounds identically when there was apparently a big difference in the velocity and explosive charge between the two rounds. If ASL were a game simulation in this sense of the word, then ballistics and armor slopes and rifle scopes would be discussed a lot more on ASL forums, and I expect MMP would be constantly tweaking the official To Kill values and the armor values: but they don't.

But there is no denying that ASL seeks to create an illusion that we are participating in a WW2 battle:
--If that wasn't the case, then why all the pages and pages of chrome rules? Why not just streamline the mechanics? (Because players desire ASL to--in some fashion--represent WW2.)
--If that wasn't the case, then why all the new HASLs? (Because players desire--in some sense--to reenact different battles.)

ASL seeks to represent WW2. (If we had exactly the same rule mechanics but instead of WW2, it re-enacted high school romance, or politics, or knitting, I wouldn't be interested.)

So when players push the mechanics of the game to the point where they're undoing the underlying design concept, this breaks the illusion for me.

For example: if a Russian player were to capture two squads worth of prisoners, then exchange those prisoners for four HS counters, then pass those prisoners around among his squads to deploy them all into HS, then for me he is undoing the design concept of the game, in this case the concept that Russian squads shouldn't be able to deploy willy-nilly. Sure, the Russian player is playing within the letter of the rules, but IMO it's breaking the idea of the game--there's no real-world corollary for what the rules are allowing here.

Fortunately these situations are rare, considering how complex the rules are. I don't mind skulking, I don't mind VBM freeze--but I do mind using unarmed trucks to charge the enemy, or popping crew out of AFVs to seize building control, or changing TCA merely to dump off Riders precisely where you want (now if you take a shot when you change TCA, that's different . . . or if you drive into an orchard for protection). Yes I'll continue with our game and yes I'll accept the loss, but I'll also be thinking that we're marring the point of the game--to represent WW2.

 

[Robin Reeve]

ASL is an excellent war movie simulation.
And there are tons of rules for the special effects.

 

[Actionjick]

We all have our pet peeves about the rules.
I will not start a debate about the different vulnerability of leaving a Foxhole during MPh, the RtPh or the APh...
Many "quirks" in the rules are directly linked to (the list is non exhaustive) :

• the sequential game turn (time is managed quite differently than in "real time" conditions)
• the representation of terrain on a hex grid (and with standard terrain rules)
• the original choices of unit values (MF, MP, FP, morale, etc.)
• the probabilities of 2d6 (a SW jams once in 36 times: where did that probability come from?)
• the techniques to reduce the players' omniscience
• ...

So I will use any trick allowed by the system, as this is a game and not

Spoiler: Dare you read this (click bait) 😛

(God be bessed: I am a non violent anabaptist Christian anarchist)

a simulation of real combat.

Lol Are there non violent anabaptist Christian anarchists in foxholes?

Back in the days of my youth, my experimentation period, I considered myself more of a nihilistic solipsist. These days I stick with drunken heathen who respects whatever others choose to embrace. To a point, can't tolerate violence or abuse of children or animals or people.

 

[Robin Reeve]

IMO he's breaking the idea of the game.

It breaks what you think is the idea of the game, as your wise "IMO" explains.
And this is happily quite a subjective aspect of things.

 

[Bill Kohler]

To a point, can't tolerate violence or abuse of children or animals or people.

What about yellow jackets, or fire ants, or politicians--are those off limits too?

 

[von Marwitz]

Fortunately these situations are rare, considering how complex the rules are. I don't mind skulking, I don't mind VBM freeze--but I do think that using unarmed trucks to charge the enemy, or popping crew out of AFV to seize building control, or changing your TCA merely to dump Riders off precisely where you want them is pushing things (now if you take a shot when you change TCA, that's different . . . or if you drive into an orchard for protection). Yes I'll continue with our game and yes I'll accept the loss, but I'll also be thinking that you're ruining the whole point behind playing the game--to represent WW2.

I have just finished reading three out of five volumes (I don't own two of them) of SS-Panzergrenadier-Division "Das Reich". I was surprised that there were several occasions in it which came as close to the "truck overrun" as it gets: Units were not aware of the Russians being in some village and when they realized, they were right in the middle of them. So they drove on, partly hoping not getting noticed, and entirely wanting to get the hell outta there. In another instance, they charged a village with more than a dozen of Kfz 1/20 Schwimmwagen. Of course, such things were rare. Rarer then they are in ASL, in which the player is omniscient on top. But the Truck OVR is not a historical impossibility.

Popping out of an AFV to seize building control is another abstraction IMHO. Who says that you can 'Control' a building merely with Infantry? What would scare you more not to approach a Building - a tank right next to fully manned and operational it or its crew inside the building? Which of the two actually exerts more 'Control'? 'Control' itself is an abstract concept in ASL.

In ASL to 'dump' Riders, you have to turn the tank's TCA to force a Bailout. Your reason to do so is that you (or the Riders) see the necessity to do so. What might the Bailout MC Riders being pushed off a tank represent? Maybe the danger of bruises, injuries caused by jumping off a tank moving at a speed of anything between 2 to 20 mph. Now, can you imagine that 'historical' riders might see the necessity to jump off a tank while it moves about too fast to get off safely? I can. It could well be argued that it should not even be necessary to turn the TCA to effect this.

What I am trying to say is the follwing:

IMHO criticizing grabbing Building Control with a Vehicular Crew after Abandoning a Vehicle or the other examples as unhistorical is beside the point, as already the concept of 'Building Control' in itself is an abstraction in the game and could well be contested from a 'historical' perspective. Only if you do not question the concept of 'Control' itself, then taking it by with a vehicular crew from a vehicle Abandoned for the purpose does appear to become 'ahistorical'. Historically, you could instead argue, a fully manned and functional tank is much more in control of the house next to it, than its vehicular crew within the house ever could be. Then again, the idea of a 'building' is an abstraction. What I just said might be true for a normal residential house represented by a single hex building depiction. But this depiction (despite having only one level in ASL - yet another abstraction), could well represent a larger house with more than one level, which in reality, neither a fully manned and functional tank nor its crew somewhere within that house could really 'Control'.

In short, because there are abstractions right, left, and center, the point of declaring anything as 'historial' or not is actually moot.
The game and game-situation rather 'feels' historical or not if you - individually as a player - allow yourself to be immersed or not. Some people do not really care about this immersion, some still manage it if an Abandoning vehicular crew grabs 'Control', some do not.
It is less about the rules, it is more about oneself.

von Marwitz