Counter set does not provide sufficient number of vehicles w/o extra armament - What's the rule?

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,204
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
I agree with jrv: the total number in Ch.H can't be useful for the purpose.

However D1.84 is clear and works well IMO, first you pick counters identical to the card description. When you run out of them, you pick those with optional armament until you reach the total required on the scenario card.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Just ran into this problem in a play-test. It is one of the hidden problems grognards have in developing scenarios; they simply have many more counters available to them from many different sources and forget that when designing scenarios, you should make allowances for the number of actual counters provided in the core module(s). Sometimes even an SSR may be necessary to cover the total number of vehicles required by the designer (say substitute additional vehicle types that are reasonably similar but may posses a different movement allowance or AF layout to meet the number of vehicles of that type required [EX: U.S. M4 75mm types]).
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,204
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
I say skip D1.84 and just assume all counters are as they are depicted on the scenario card. :)
This is not what D1.84 stipulates and repeating your opinion on this thread will not change the rule. I'll stick to it.
 

STAVKA

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
831
Reaction score
553
Location
East Front
Country
llFinland
This is not what D1.84 stipulates and repeating your opinion on this thread will not change the rule. I'll stick to it.
Believe no TD will conflate DYO chapter H rules
with what is provided in the game (D1.84).
 

aiabx

Same as it ever was
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
634
Location
Toronto
Country
llCanada
Something that always bothered me about the card game Magic was there was a benefit to having more money to spend on cards - it had the potential to give you an advantage over players who couldn't buy as many cards.
I never expected to find that ASL had the same problem, where the guy who spent more money on modules would have more counters in his supply to deprive his opponent of vehicles with extra optional weapons.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I am going to give the official ruling on this. If the scenario is from an ASL module, what is considered "provided by the game" is the counters in one copy of that module, plus one copy of every module required by that module (recursively). Counters from extra copies of modules/HASL you may own may not be used. If the scenario is from an HASL or similar, you use the counters from one copy of the HASL plus one copy of every requirement of that HASL. If the scenario is from another publication (e.g. ASL Journal, Schwerpunkt), unless the counters include ones that were not published in a module, you may use one copy of each module that is necessary to make up the depicted OB. If the counters depicted include counters from some other source, you may use one copy of that source in addition to any standard modules that are needed. Replacement counters must replace (not supplement) existing counters.

If you may have lost counters or are otherwise having trouble determining the number of counters that came in a particular configuration, you can view images of unpunched counter sheets on-line to get the information you need. Boardgamegeek has a good collection of these.

edit: unless you are a crazy radical like Klas.

JR
 
Last edited:

STAVKA

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
831
Reaction score
553
Location
East Front
Country
llFinland
I am going to give the official ruling on this. If the scenario is from an ASL module, what is considered "provided by the game" is the counters in one copy of that module, plus one copy of every module required by that module (recursively). Counters from extra copies of modules/HASL you may own may not be used. If the scenario is from an HASL or similar, you use the counters from one copy of the HASL plus one copy of every requirement of that HASL. If the scenario is from another publication (e.g. ASL Journal, Schwerpunkt), unless the counters include ones that were not published in a module, you may use one copy of each module that is necessary to make up the depicted OB. If the counters depicted include counters from some other source, you may use one copy of that source in addition to any standard modules that are needed. Replacement counters must replace (not supplement) existing counters.

If you may have lost counters or are otherwise having trouble determining the number of counters that came in a particular configuration, you can view images of unpunched counter sheets on-line to get the information you need. Boardgamegeek has a good collection of these.

edit: unless you are a crazy radical like Klas.

JR
Lol. That is some crazy writing, could explain why if you like.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I say skip D1.84 and just assume all counters are as they are depicted on the scenario card. :)

That is how I always play it and it is not that hard to remember that e.g., no Tank has an AAMG.
It is what we do as well, but for play-test purposes it had to be addressed, and I believe should be addressed by SSR in most instances. Why leave it up to the players to discern what approach to take without and SSR to address the situation. It may really impact the results if let's say played by vasl where there are an unlimited number of a vehicle type present as opposed to a FtF playing where one may have to substitute additional counters and exactly how does he do this, by rule it's D1.84. The fact that one simply doesn't know, or if the publisher does know what units were used, how do quantify the results to attain the required balance if the counters substituted were played with their inherent AF/MP factors. In short, it's just a lack of attention to detail on the part of the scenario designer in most instances, something they try very hard to achieve.
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Now to correctly play an official scenario, you have to remember which module it came with - possibly, which edition of the module, in case the crazies at MMP decide to change the number of copies of some of the vehicles.

Count me among the Klas-like radicals, if that's what playing with the units depicted on the scenario card makes me.
 

Rooster2k

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
128
Reaction score
46
Location
Buffalo NY
First name
Mike
Country
llUnited States
Hate to be a radical but what about the good old "use any counter and use the stats from the one you want"
 

Rock SgtDan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
125
Location
State of Confusion
First name
Dan
Country
llSlovenia
At the time the rule was written, there were NO "non-official," third party scenarios.
Therefore the phrase "official scenarios" is merely to contrast with DYO games.
So it means "all scenarios that are not DYO."
So it must apply to third party creations.
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
The last time the rules were revised, as in 2nd edition, there were plenty of non-official scenarios out there. It would have been easy to change the "official" into "non-DYO", but it was not done.

"Therefore"... your reasoning is weak, at least in this instance.
 

Rock SgtDan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
125
Location
State of Confusion
First name
Dan
Country
llSlovenia
The last time the rules were revised, as in 2nd edition, there were plenty of non-official scenarios out there. It would have been easy to change the "official" into "non-DYO", but it was not done.

"Therefore"... your reasoning is weak, at least in this instance.
No, it was obviously an oversight, or else some existing Mailing List thread or Q&A would document it.
 
Top