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

Actionjick

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,589
Reaction score
5,085
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Bill Kohler said:
What about yellow jackets, or fire ants, or politicians--are those off limits too?

:)
Click to expand...
Cockroaches, mosquitoes, fleas and flies are on my hit list. I accept the karmic debt for hastening their departure from this earthly plane. Fire ants not in this part of Ohio yet so I'll reserve judgment on them. Politicians, no comment. 🙄

Yellow jackets, live and let live unless they get too pesky.
 
Bill Kohler

Bill Kohler

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
762
Reaction score
604
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
von Marwitz said:
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.
. . .
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'.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this argument.

(1) ASL defines its own abstractions. Part of that defined abstraction is that every time a crew leaves a vehicle, that vehicle is now considered to be non-functioning, it is abandoned. I'm not saying that, the ASL rules are saying that.

(2) If ASL had wanted the presence of an AFV outside a building to affect its self-defined concept of building control, it would've listed an AFV in bypass as a means of gaining building control.
 
Last edited:
Sparafucil3

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,354
Reaction score
5,102
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
von Marwitz said:
Yeah. We might just have finished in time when the ASLRBv3 is ready. 🤣
Click to expand...
I think v3 is closer than you think. I believe the eASLRB is the basis for v3. Just guessing though. -- jim
 
Actionjick

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,589
Reaction score
5,085
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Bill Kohler said:
But there is no denying that ASL seeks to create an illusion that we are participating in a WW2 battle:


So accept it: 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.)

I'll also be thinking that you're ruining the whole point behind playing the game--to represent WW2.
Click to expand...
I will agree and disagree with some of your points.

While SL started out as a WWII game it has expanded beyond that with Korea, Soldiers of the Negus and I think a WWI variant. ( some depends on your view when WWII started )

As I stated up thread it was the mechanics of the game/rules that grabbed me. So IMO it would work as well, with minor tweaking, for most conflicts. Hence Space Guards Counterattack, which I assume from your comments would not be your cup of tea.😉 That's fine by me, as long as you are enjoying the system and playing. The same sentiment goes for those who are looking at the game for something else. Just enjoy it and play. Echoing von Marwitz, the game can accommodate many different types of players. That's the beauty of it.

Keep playing and roll low! Btw quite enjoy your posts!🤗🤔
 
von Marwitz

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,379
Reaction score
10,275
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Sparafucil3 said:
I think v3 is closer than you think. I believe the eASLRB is the basis for v3. Just guessing though. -- jim
Click to expand...
Indeed I think you are up to something. Not long ago there was some post by Perry that made me think, too, that v3 might be closer than believed.

That said, though, of course it is with any day passing.

von Marwitz
 
lightspeed

lightspeed

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
440
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Bill Kohler said:
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?)
Click to expand...
An interesting thread to be sure.

Perhaps I look at ASL in a bit too binary a way, so I'll ask: What is an example of a sleaze that "borders on cheating?"
I tend to think an action is cheating or it's not. Obviously I'm not seeing something here...

BTW, I don't use the term sleaze. As much as I think the VBM rules could be tweaked to make them better (i.e., a bit
more dangerous for the AFV), I would not call it a sleaze. I guess my rigid definition of sleaze does not include anything
legal.

indy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top