I haven't found anything that stops someone from asking an opponent to pause movement while he throws some dice. This can be used to fake a minefield attack (especially if you allow secret rolls to conceal MF strength). It can obviously get out of hand however and cause unacceptable delays in a game. If nothing else, it's a good way to make you opponent want to see your list of mines at the end. Any thoughts on this?
Fake Minefields
- Thread starter pzkfw5g
- Start date
Pitman
Forum Guru
Fake die rolls are explicitly disallowed in the 2nd edition rules.
Treadhead
Senior Member
Say what?pzkfw5g said:
Sorry, but you've got it backwards: There is no provision anywhere that allows a "fake" DR such as you describe.
The only time you can make a DR or dr is when a specific rule calls for it. At no other time can one make a "fake" DR, and rather than having to prove to you that the rules do not disallow it, you would have to prove to me that a "fake" DR is allowed .
That's COWTRA all the way.
I disagree with your conclusion; what you propose would be a House Rule, and is certainly not allowed in ASL.
I won't even ask what a Fake Minefield is...
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
Treadhead
Senior Member
Mark,pitman said:
Help me out... where is it explicitly disallowed?
I agree, it is not allowed, but I reach that conclusion simply by applying COWTRA. I couldn't find a rule reference...
(I wish you would provide a rule reference when you make such statements...)
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
That seems rather at odds with the (in my opinion) prevailing attitude on these boards regarding what rules allow which is that if a rule doesn't expressly disallow something then it's OK. I don't have 2nd ed so wasn't aware of the ban on "fake" rolls.bebakken said:
The question occured to me when I thought about minefields - what if a mine isn't detected by the first unit that enters the mf? If you rolled and got no result the opponent knows there is a mf there even though no mine may have been detected. The only way I can think of to keep the opponent guessing as to where your mf's are w/o either searching or setting one off is to be able to have fake rolls. Since fake rolls are banned, however, I guess this is just a playability sacrifice which is ok with me.
I would suggest that they are something similar to "Dummy Minefields" as described in F.7B. In fact, upon reading F.7B, I would suggest that hidden minefields be given a number of "fake" rolls equal to the number of allowed Dummy Minefields (were it not for the ban on fake rolls).bebakken said:
BTW, what is "COWTRA"? Thanks.
pryoung
Member
From D.5 in the 2nd edition: "Fake DR/dr, e.g., for non-existent A-T mines, or for unnecessary Reliability DR, are NA, whether secret or not."bebakken said:
Pete
pryoung
Member
"Concentrate on what the rules allow." That's a quote from the introduction to the 1st edition of the ASLRB. The full quote is as follows:pzkfw5g said:
The exact interpretation of this passage will vary from person to person, from situation to situation. In the case of your question, I would say that it wouldn't be allowed simply because there is no provision in the rules that even mentions it, much less specifically allowing it (in addition to the fact that D.5 in the 2nd edition specifically prohibits it).
As far as Dummy Minefields go, they are a different thing completely than what you are describing. Dummy Minefields are specifically described in the rules and allowed by scenario OB or SSR, much like HIP units. Completely different animal from "fake" minefields as you describe them.
Pete
sgtono
Member
Ya know pzkfw5g,
I have seeen almost all your posts for quite a few months now, almost all of them are ways to change the rules the way you want them and even more are the "house rules" you have devised. My understanding of house rules are to facilitate play of the game not alter the rules in a major way.
Perhaps you should develop your own rules for a different game and try to sell it.
Keith
I have seeen almost all your posts for quite a few months now, almost all of them are ways to change the rules the way you want them and even more are the "house rules" you have devised. My understanding of house rules are to facilitate play of the game not alter the rules in a major way.
Perhaps you should develop your own rules for a different game and try to sell it.
Keith
I think you have misunderstood the prevailing attitude on these boards. And in any case, your understanding that everything not expressly disallowed is OK, is completely wrong.pzkfw5g said:
It is not expressly disallowed to remove your opponent's counters from the board when he's taking a break, nor to add 5 Panthers to your OB. Its still not the prevailing attitude on these boards that its OK.
The underlying theme in all of my suggestions is to make the game more compatible with reality since that is what attracted me to SL in 1977 in the first place - it was much more realistic than Panzer Blitz (not to knock PB which is a great game). If you are cool with your StugIIIG driving down the road at a 60-deg angle so that it can't cover both sides of the road equally then leave the rules as they are. Did you discard all the armor changes from SL to CoI because they conflicted with the simple rules in SL?ktodd said:
If you don't like my posts then don't read them. I don't post anything demeaning or socially offensive in any way (though I seem to have offended you in some other way). If the nearest ASL'er I knew of was closer than 2 hours (one way) I might be more of a rules lawyer, especially if I ever intended to play in a tournament (nearest is ~700mi away).
Perhaps.Ole Boe said:
Hey, I never said, nor meant to suggest that I play anything like that, only that I got the impression that this was the prevailing attitude here. Maybe I was wrong, I've been wrong before and it will probably happen again.Ole Boe said:
You guys seem pretty hostile, I think this will be my last post here. Bye.
I'm sorry if my post came out as hostile. I have nothing against house rules or suggested rule changes, and I did not mean to suggest that you would think of removing the opponents units or similarily. I just wanted to point out how important it is to understand that everything not explicitely allowed is disallowed - not vice versa...
sgtono
Member
I took no offense to your posts nor did I mean any hostility. But the game as is, obviously does not seem to fit your taste, so I was merely making a suggestion. One thing that makes ASL great is rule stability and its own flavor of simulation. Constant rule clarifications are one thing, constant rule changes disturbs the playability of any game.pzkfw5g said:
IMHO,
Keith
da priest
Member
Yes.pzkfw5g said:
And then discarded into the closet, unplayed, the constantly changing rules from COD and GI...never to play again, until ASL came and had a fixed, unchanging set of rules.
It wasn't the complexity or simplicity of the rules, it was the constantly changing/"living" rules nature...s*cked big time. :evil:
SamB
Shut up and play!
The major problem with this is the vast differences that may exist between your version of "reality" and mine.
That and the vast differences that may exist between both our versions and that version that really is accurate.
I have no problem with a little "mind game" where I try to psych out my opponent (or visa versa) with "hints" that my mines are out there... But I do have a problem with a player making a DR in every hex... If you want to make the guy move carefully, you don't have to use a DR, just say _"wait a second"_ and consult your notes regarding mines and HIP.
BTW, I see no way that this adds to the "realism" of the game at all. In "real life" the attackers don't know if three are a few mines out there, or belts of mines 200 meters deep. But they move forward till something goes "boom" and they find out.
Rolling a die (or dice) doesn't add realism. And it doesn't add anything that you can't add by obviously checking your notes.
And, last but not least... "concentrate on what the rules allow" means that you can only do those things specifically allowed.
Sam