Card-driven ASL

[Philippe D.]

To be more specific, the scenario was TAC32 Contre-attaque a Connage. My 88 rolled a 12 on its first shot and then 6 on its first repair roll. I kept playing but with the loss of a crucial piece so early the game was basically blown. Yes yes I know its ASL and all that but it was essentially a waste of precious gaming time. And yes it only happens once in a while and all that, and probably reflects on the scenario design more than anything...just saying.

Not sure it can be laid at the feet of the scenario design. Any smallish scenario (OK, Tac32 is rather large, but still) is likely to have a crucial weapon in its OB, unless it is pure infantry; and barring a SSR to the contrary, any weapon will malfunction with probability at least 1/36 the first time it is fired, and X out with further probability 1/6 (for a total of 1/216) the first time you attempt to repair it. This is more of an effect of the rules system.

 

[BattleSchool]

Not sure it can be laid at the feet of the scenario design. Any smallish scenario (OK, Tac32 is rather large, but still) is likely to have a crucial weapon in its OB, unless it is pure infantry; and barring a SSR to the contrary, any weapon will malfunction with probability at least 1/36 the first time it is fired, and X out with further probability 1/6 (for a total of 1/216) the first time you attempt to repair it. This is more of an effect of the rules system.

In retrospect, had ASL been (re)designed along a 2d10 system, scenario designers would have had more latitude wrt tailoring the B# of a particular weapon to suit the scenario. For example, in a very small scenario that includes a major asset in the OB, the B#/R# of this asset could be tailored to suit the circumstances (e.g. B99% and R40%) in an SSR.

Of course, there is nothing preventing a scenario designer from assigning a weapon an R4 using the current 1d6 repair system. That said, I really like Steve Pleva's heretical rule that allows repair attempts at any point during a Player Turn. Even if an R1 weapon doesn't repair, your opponent may not want to gamble with an equally important game piece.

 

[Martin Mayers]

To be more specific, the scenario was TAC32 Contre-attaque a Connage. My 88 rolled a 12 on its first shot and then 6 on its first repair roll. I kept playing but with the loss of a crucial piece so early the game was basically blown. Yes yes I know its ASL and all that but it was essentially a waste of precious gaming time. And yes it only happens once in a while and all that, and probably reflects on the scenario design more than anything...just saying.

It really is 'the game' and quirky stuff happens all the time, even if you remove breakage from the game. Personally I think snipers have messed up FAR more scenarios than the malfunction rules have. But that's just my impression.

I played a scenario once where I had one of those meat choppers with ROF 3 and IFE 20. My opponent moved his three 648s and 10-2 adjacent so I whacked him with 40-2. Broke it of course first shot. End result, two pinned 648s. He advanced into CC with a 648 and the 10-2. I got ambush. Didn't want to lose my meat chopper and I would have died anyhow, so rolled the dice. Got snakeseyes. My next prep fire on the 648s...broke them both. They both surrendered.

I never repaired the gun, but my crew still won the scenario for me.

Like I say...quirky shit happens. Mess around with the game at people's peril I'd say personally speaking.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

That is just silly. I never said the dice should be eliminated.

That's equally silly. Neither did I.

 

[Eagle4ty]

It really is 'the game' and quirky stuff happens all the time, even if you remove breakage from the game. Personally I think snipers have messed up FAR more scenarios than the malfunction rules have. But that's just my impression.

I played a scenario once where I had one of those meat choppers with ROF 3 and IFE 20. My opponent moved his three 648s and 10-2 adjacent so I whacked him with 40-2. Broke it of course first shot. End result, two pinned 648s. He advanced into CC with a 648 and the 10-2. I got ambush. Didn't want to lose my meat chopper and I would have died anyhow, so rolled the dice. Got snakeseyes. My next prep fire on the 648s...broke them both. They both surrendered.

I never repaired the gun, but my crew still won the scenario for me.

Like I say...quirky shit happens. Mess around with the game at people's peril I'd say personally speaking.

Agreed. The failure there seems to have been the lack of a comprehensive mission/scenario analysis and a failure in planning. That is to say, one should always have a worst case scenario in mind in planning and not rely too heavily upon the performance of any single weapon system or unit. Granted, some (most) scenarios give you a dearth of systems to overcome your opponent as one of Murphy's Laws of Combat so aptly state: "If you're short of everything except the enemy, you're in combat". The failure to accomplish your mission because of a specific weapon systems failure, a salient unit not performing to expectations or an unforeseen event such as a sniper attack, is not a failure of design or rules, its comes down to a lack of preparation for these contingencies in most cases (there is of course as always, just a run of horrible luck). If one can't reconcile themselves to this fact without resorting to outside factors (HRs, countermanding results, Mulligans, etc) that ameliorate these possible occurrences, you're probably playing the wrong game reflecting the wrong type of conflict for their tastes.

 

[kcole4001]

I do agree that a percentile based system would have given a much broader table of results for any needed roll, and allowed for a better tailoring of attributes for each weapon.
I've played quite a few percentile systems and still had atrocious streaks of improbably bad rolls, though, some folks just have worse luck.
It may have been a better system if the designers had gone this route after SL, who knows.

I'm certainly not advocating a change in ASL, however. It took a long time and a huge amount of man-hours to refine the system we have now, and it works.
It could be better in some ways, but it is rather entrenched after all these years, and we all love it (otherwise why spend so much money and time on it?).

Anyone who wants to play using variants is perfectly within their rights, and can do so as long as they can find players who enjoy the same.
I do feel it becomes a little less ASL and a little something else, though.

And it's a primary facet of the game that one must learn to plan for worst cases rather than best possibilities when setting up a game.
I know I can't count on good luck, so if I do get some it's a bonus.
That's just something players newer to wargaming in general need to learn.

 

[Justiciar]

In retrospect, had ASL been (re)designed along a 2d10 system, scenario designers ....

But, but, but, then dice designers would have a much harder job getting their design on to the face of the 1 of the d10.

 

[BattleSchool]

But, but, but, then dice designers would have a much harder job getting their design on to the face of the 1 of the d10.

The significance of double-ones would be much reduced under such a schema. I suspect that CH and HOB results, for instance, would be percentile based, and no longer reliant upon a snake-eyes trigger.

However, were an underemployed, linguistically-challenged, pension-less fellow with ASL-tendencies compelled to create designs for d10 dice, he'd hardly be at a loss for ideas.



Truth be told, I'd have preferred to have remained gainfully employed in the antipodes, where most of my free time would be spent tramping (hiking), cycling, and swimming. ASL would be reserved for rainy days not spent in a hot spring or a seaside café. In such circumstances, I would have viewed losing an occasional game of ASL due to dodgy 11mm d6 (provided in BV3) as part of an overall karma balance system (KBS).

 

[Justiciar]

The significance of double-ones would be much reduced under such a schema. I suspect that CH and HOB results, for instance, would be percentile based, and no longer reliant upon a snake-eyes trigger.

However, were an underemployed, linguistically-challenged, pension-less fellow with ASL-tendencies compelled to create designs for d10 dice, he'd hardly be at a loss for ideas.

View attachment 3002

Truth be told, I'd have preferred to have remained gainfully employed in the antipodes, where most of my free time would be spent tramping (hiking), cycling, and swimming. ASL would be reserved for rainy days not spent in a hot spring or a seaside café. In such circumstances, I would have viewed losing an occasional game of ASL due to dodgy 11mm d6 (provided in BV3) as part of an overall karma balance system (KBS).

<SIGH> My attempt at humoUr. Failed.

I meant you could not fit some neat / cool logo / unit insignia on the 1 face. So we would not see your fine style...nor best ASL blog site.

Yes, that we would all rather be in our happy place is understood.

 

[jrv]

What if instead of cubes (or other polyhedrons) we used a pair of spheres? Then we could have real number results instead of just these silly integers. Malfunction on rolling a rational number. You wouldn't have enough "i"-es for your IIIIIIIIII...FT.

JR

 

[BattleSchool]

<SIGH> My attempt at humoUr. Failed.

Au contraire mon confrère d'ASL, 'twas I who failed to convey the wee bit of humour in my response.

I meant you could not fit some neat / cool logo / unit insignia on the 1 face.

I gathered that, which is why I uploaded the photo with the 55mm d20s. If ASL had gone with d10s, I'd have to go big and bold with custom d10s.

That, or focus on other things such as event cards, or OBA tokens.

 

[Justiciar]

Au contraire mon confrère d'ASL, 'twas I who failed to convey the wee bit of humour in my response.



I gathered that, which is why I uploaded the photo with the 55mm d20s. If ASL had gone with d10s, I'd have to go big and bold with custom d10s.

That, or focus on other things such as event cards, or OBA tokens.

Yeah...your Mk I eyeball is better than mine...I could not detect 55mm by the orbiting drone shot of them in the photo. Thus I missed your more metric driven humoUr.

Slick reference there to the event cards...and something posted somewhere else by way of a request and a response. Noted.

 

[kcole4001]

Dice towers would have to be quite huge to accommodate those big 'uns!

I wouldn't trade those beautiful cubes for all the d10s (or d20s) in Gygax's basement.
I do have my favorite d10s for the games that require them, and really enjoy the critical hit table based on percentile results (Dragon Quest and Star Fleet Battle were particularly amusing).
Fun times.

 

[Jeffrey D Myers]

What if instead of cubes (or other polyhedrons) we used a pair of spheres? Then we could have real number results instead of just these silly integers. Malfunction on rolling a rational number. You wouldn't have enough "i"-es for your IIIIIIIIII...FT.

JR

JR has gone off the deep end this time (or, perhaps, yet again this time)!

 

[hongkongwargamer]

Dude, I hear he's FROM the deep end ..

 

[djohannsen]

What if instead of cubes (or other polyhedrons) we used a pair of spheres? Then we could have real number results instead of just these silly integers. Malfunction on rolling a rational number.

That's a zero probability event - I'll take those odds! (For those who don't know, the rationals have Lebesgue measure zero in [0,1].)

 

[Philippe D.]

Who says the sphere rolls according to the Lebesgue measure? That's only one of a myriad possibilities!

 

[jrv]

That's a zero probability event - I'll take those odds! (For those who don't know, the rationals have Lebesgue measure zero in [0,1].)

Ah, but I have you here. We are rolling in [1,6]. AND we are taking the sum of those two numbers, so even if the two numbers are irrational by themselves, their sum might be rational.

JR

 

[Martin Mayers]

Dice towers would have to be quite huge to accommodate those big 'uns!

I wouldn't trade those beautiful cubes for all the d10s (or d20s) in Gygax's basement.
I do have my favorite d10s for the games that require them, and really enjoy the critical hit table based on percentile results (Dragon Quest and Star Fleet Battle were particularly amusing).
Fun times.

I used to play MERP using the Rolemaster critical hit tables. My playing team screwed up an investigation mission into the lower depths of Moria. 4th Age. Post War of the Ring. So, I had them encounter The (much weakened) Balrog. My intention was to create a scenario ending where they had to flee the mines followed by 'Him'. I rules that he had lost the power of immolation since Sauron's downfall right. But, otherwise, pretty much as he was.

My mate Andy (whom I originally discovered ASL and wargaming with)...."we must stand and fight.....for ROHANNNN".....he attacked, managed to achieve an E Critical (the most serious). The final roll on the Critical was 477. God's honest truth. We still laugh about it. It's the highest 'open ended' roll I've ever seen in my 30 odd years of Role Playing. The table maxes out at 250+.

First attack roll. He was only bloody 15th level and had only been able to attack first with the benefit of a haste spell. We ruled that his magical sword had, somehow, caused a chain reaction in the magical make up of the beast causing it's cells to disrupt and resulting in it exploding in a puff of filthy, black, poisonous, smoke.

Probably not 'realistic' in hindsite (and in the context of Middle Earth)....but.....but.......477

I'm not suggesting we took the game seriously way back (we were in our early 20s), but he still has his lucky dice (or at least he still did last time I saw him a few years back).

 

[kcole4001]

That's one of those magical moments that are impossible to create, but make it all worthwhile.
I miss those times.
We used to have an AD&D group fluctuating between 8-12 players regularly. We had a lot of fun.