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

[Actionjick]

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

Sleaze. Now you've got me thinking about another term for it. A topic for discussion with Captain Bacchus tonight!

 

[Jazz]

I guess my rigid definition of sleaze does not include anything
legal.

indy

I beg to differ. The commonly (in my experience) accepted definition is that expressed in the preable to the Big Black Book of ASL Sleaze:

Working definition of sleaze: something the ASL rules allow that feels or seems wrong.

and the corollary

Another definition of ASL sleaze: something your opponent thought of before you did.

For sleaze to be true sleaze it has to be legal. Otherwise it is just cheating.

 

[Actionjick]

I beg to differ. The commonly (in my experience) accepted definition is that expressed in the preable to the Big Black Book of ASL Sleaze:

and the corollary


For sleaze to be true sleaze it has to be legal. Otherwise it is just cheating.

These are acceptable definitions but not really succinct. I might offer the term jick or jicking. As in " that's a real jick move you jicking jick " but some jick already laid claim to it.

It does seem to encompass the sentiment though.

 

[Bill Kohler]

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've written about my views upstream. But concisely put, I assert that ASL models WW2, making many explicit abstractions, and it weaves together a paradigm for the game. To me, a questionable play is one that employs a legal move but which circumvents the clear intent of that paradigm.

EX:
--Abandoning an AFV at the last moment to gain building control.
--Russians using prisoners to deploy squads all over the place.
--Charging the enemy with trucks.
--Intentionally breaking a unit so that it can rout forward in the hopes of rallying and being good order in a hex it could never have reached otherwise.

These moves are all legal, though some of them might hurt your cause more than they help it, and in my view none of them are realistic portrayals of combat in WW2. Players can dispute what belongs on this list and what doesn't, and can dispute whether or not it's fair to play such moves, and some players may even assert there's only legal moves and illegal moves, nothing in between.

So there's a wide spectrum of thought on this issue.

 

[Actionjick]

These are acceptable definitions but not really succinct. I might offer the term jick or jicking. As in " that's a real jick move you jicking jick " but some jick already laid claim to it.

It does seem to encompass the sentiment though.

Sleaze = Scowtra
Super concentrating on what the rules allow

Just a thought. Colonel Cuervo likes it.

 

[Jazz]

These are acceptable definitions but not really succinct. I might offer the term jick or jicking. As in " that's a real jick move you jicking jick " but some jick already laid claim to it.

It does seem to encompass the sentiment though.

I believe those definitions provide necessary and sufficient conditions for a given action in ASL to be considered "Sleaze"?

I would be hard pressed to go shorter without adequately defining the particulars of the situation.

Forgive me, I'm an engineer....mea culpa.

 

[Actionjick]

I believe those definitions provide necessary and sufficient conditions for a given action in ASL to be considered "Sleaze"?

I would be hard pressed to go shorter without adequately defining the particulars of the situation.

Forgive me, I'm an engineer....mea culpa.

No problem! I suggest you give serious consideration to: Scowtra, as defined up thread.

Originally I just meant it as a haha but the more I thought about it the more I decided it was a succinct description of how sleaze originates.

The Original Sleazer is reading the rules, closely scrutinizing every possiblity the rule presents, alone or in conjunction with other rules. Suddenly a concept crystallizes within his fevered ASL brain. A sleaze is born, given birth by a gamer concentrating on the rules and what they allow in an attempt to extract everything legally possible from them.

A sleaze is simply the child of this super concentration.

I like it.

 

[Jazz]

I suggest you give serious consideration to: Scowtra, as defined up thread.

What is missing is the perception that somehow there is violence being done to the fabric of the underlying reality?

I like it.

<shrug> To each his own....

 

[Actionjick]

What is missing is the perception that somehow there is violence being done to the fabric of the underlying reality?



<shrug> To each his own....

Lol. The Doors of perception open to a Separate reality.

 

[lightspeed]

So there's a wide spectrum of thought on this issue.

I think that's the understatement of the decade!

indy