First Impressions of J12
- Thread starter Gunner Scott
- Start date
AZslim
Elder Member
Gunner Scott
Forum Guru
rdw5150
it's just a game
OK I'll go against the grain..........
my first impressions of J12: Disappointment. 20 less pages (admittedly cheaper, though not cheap). Articles just do not seem (again first impression) as good as J11 (at least for me). 15 pages on game play, the rest on analysis of products not yet released and one scenario.
Sort of a bummer as journals have always been a favorite of mine.
Peace
Roger
my first impressions of J12: Disappointment. 20 less pages (admittedly cheaper, though not cheap). Articles just do not seem (again first impression) as good as J11 (at least for me). 15 pages on game play, the rest on analysis of products not yet released and one scenario.
Sort of a bummer as journals have always been a favorite of mine.
Peace
Roger
rdw5150
it's just a game
Agreed...... this.......
rdw5150
it's just a game
Hi
Oh, sorry I meant analysis of *two* scenarios, (I was going to correct it until you posted) not one (as in analysis articles on two scenarios)......
Either way, IMHO, this one does not stand up to most of the Journals. Though I admit that not every product will trip every ASLers trigger (except those who blindly love everything ASL). At 30 bones with shipping, disappointing. I was spoiled with J11, which I thought was awesome.
Peace
Roger
I'll say I'm going to be pretty happy if they start making these available on a regular basis rather than the 10 in 20 years they put out previously. I suppose it will be like every other type of similar publication, not every article is going to be a home run or appeal to everyone. I can understand how an article that might appeal to me as a newer player would be old hat to many of you guys.
rdw5150
it's just a game
You know I was just thinking about that. Perhaps a Journal a year of lesser (but still good) quality is better than one ever other year which is great.
To be clear, I am disappointed in the Journal. But that is in comparison to the others. I was hoping for another 58 page Journal full of stuff I love. It is just not as good IMHO.
Peace
Roger
von Marwitz
Forum Guru
I believe the hardest part in getting together a Journal is receiving articles from the community that stand up to the scrutiny of the readership. IIRC the MMP guys have uttered in these forums before, that they would be just happy to beef things up - if there were beef around...
As it is, many stones in ASL have already been turned around in the past. So you'll either have some people complaining if - again - 101 tank tactics or Ambush is the topic of an article while others aren't content that the topic were last addressed in some old AH ASL Annual in 1993, when they were still toddlers...
To get both parties into the boat means that you will have to add something 'new' out of the topic. And this means you have to tease out intricate nuances that are actually new the part of the readers that believe they already have 'seen everything'. The fact is, that there aren't that many people around which are capable of doing that. As the devil lies in the detail, finding and writing about such nuances, will almost every time require very careful consideration of the author's wording to make things waterproof - which is rather unpleasant work. Much harder than to point out basic tactics of some sort.
I don't have J12 yet, so I cannot evaluate it from my POV at this time. In general, my favorite part of the ASL Annuals and the ASL Journals have always been the articles on tactics or particular rules sections. I never took a lot of interest in replays (though I did like the apporach of independent comment of the Axis player, Allied player, and a neutral commentator of a given turn). Novadays, it seems easier to follow the actual play as it happens on VASL where you'll find very good players you can learn a lot from just by watching. Previews to future products are ok for me. Mostly, it will be some time until they are around and we are curious, aren't we? Besides the articles, the scenarios or mini campaigns have the greatest appeal for me. And here is a chance for Journals to do things that normal scenario packs usually don't - for example make 3 scenarios playable with some dependencies as a small set (I remember the trio of 'Setting the Stage' and two others I can't recall the names of at the moment).
Altogether, though, Journals / Annuals have been among my favourite products for ASL by MMP rating just after the core modules.
von Marwitz
Tuomo
Keeper of the Funk
60% this. I wouldn't resign the game, but I'd make a mental note of annoyance and take special pleasure in calling out the other guy's rules mistakes and try extra hard to win. Shrug.
I get that this is a case where I'm not playing it strictly by the rulebook, and nobody can expect sympathy when they do that. But just to explain the reasoning, in this particular case I think people have slipped into this "bad habit" because it seems to fit the flow of the game better. I think that ending a vehicle's MPh in Bypass with MPs left to spare is so common that people just let it go and assume those excess MPs are spent in Delay or in having done the VBM by expending more MPs than necessary. That "feels more right" than whatever is indicated "by the book". You move in via Bypass, you announce you're done moving, bingo. Sure, your opponent may say "OK, but that was your last 7 MPs you spent there, so I'm gonna get 7 First Fire shots at you, and he's right, but that still "feels more right" than whatever the (correct, by-the-book!) alternative is.
Yep, I recognize that this logic is indefensible. I still would rather play it that way.
Could someone point out the game mechanic that's gained by playing it correctly? Maybe that's part of why so many people play it "lazy" - they don't see the value of what they're missing. If I have 7 MP left and I want to end up in Motion Bypass of a building that's 2 hexes away, what's better about the correct way (moving into the first hex at 5 MP, say [or moving in at 1MP and delaying for another 4], and then Bypassing the building for MPs 6 and 7) then the incorrect, lazy, way (moving into the first hex at 1 MP, then bypassing the building for MPs 2 and 3, then saying "I'm done" and acknowledging that the vehicle is also spending MPs 4-7 in Motion where he is)?
I mean, aside from "playing the game according to the rules", which is of course what we all should do, but if people don't understand why the rules dictate certain things, they're likely to play it lazy and wrong. That's all I'm saying.
There's so many ways to burn MPs (entering a hex at more MP than necessary, using Delay MPs) that it seems ... against the flow of the rules? ... to worry about how those last MPs are spent. I think that's part of it as well.
[Edit - reading this again, yeah, it's pretty weak. I shoulda learned it the right way a long time ago and just gotten into the habit of doing things correctly. Funny how one can get so attached to one's own biases and quasi House Rules. I still would rather play it the lazy way, but I don't think I'll be so annoyed if my opponent expresses a desire to play it correctly. Look, even after playing this game forever, sometimes you gotta accept that You've Been Playing It Wrong.]
Last edited:
FourDeuceMF
Senior Member
Frankly, I think a lot of the 'gameyness' can be taken out by allowing a vehicle to expend Delay MP while still moving. There's really nothing different than that, and the artificial-ness of 'spending more than the minimum to enter'. You'd still be subject to DF for each MP spent, and in some ways, it wouldn't change how most people play - merely the rules lawyers.
That was a good article, though. Folks obsess too much on VBM Sleaze & things like Skulking - there are ways to combat both - if you know they exist, prepare to deal with it...or not, at your peril...
That was a good article, though. Folks obsess too much on VBM Sleaze & things like Skulking - there are ways to combat both - if you know they exist, prepare to deal with it...or not, at your peril...
Philippe D.
Elder Member
OK, I don't know why that is exactly, but the rules don't allow for Delay MPs when in Motion. With that in mind, what the rules do allow is overspending MPs for any type of movement. So it's a very rare occurrence that an AFV, in its MPh previous to reaching the position its owner wants it to reach and remain in Motion in, has no opportunity to do so and reach the exact wanted position with no MPs left.
Overall, the only thing I would want an opponent to stick to is, if some unexpected threat is discovered in the "final" position, he would not be able to react to said threat, because the extra MPs are supposed to have been spent when the threat is discovered. Most of the time, there are plenty of opportunities to overspend while in a safe position, so I wouldn't even ask him to specify where the extra MPs go.
Overall, the only thing I would want an opponent to stick to is, if some unexpected threat is discovered in the "final" position, he would not be able to react to said threat, because the extra MPs are supposed to have been spent when the threat is discovered. Most of the time, there are plenty of opportunities to overspend while in a safe position, so I wouldn't even ask him to specify where the extra MPs go.
kcole4001
Stray Cat
I agree 100%, also with the rest of the post.
You just have to buy Journals...and Action Packs (they have maps!)...and especially HASLs (because they're awesome!!!)...and of course core modules because they're the basis of everything else that comes along.
Regarding the delay MPS, you can just figure out how many you need to burn and spend them entering a hex somewhere out of LOS before you need to bypass.
Usually there are plenty of opportunities to do this unless you're driving an FT-17 or other super slow casualty box.
klasmalmstrom
Forum Guru
Not any type of movement - only when you enter a new hex.
Philippe D.
Elder Member
I know that - but still, I'd say that covers the vast majority of "whatever happens during an AFV's MPh prior to ending it in VBM". But you're right - if you begin your turn in Motion in VBM, and only plan to go round and round in VBM in the same hex, you won't be able to overspend.
Michael Dorosh
der Spieß des Forums
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2004
- Messages
- 15,733
- Reaction score
- 2,765
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- First name
- Michael
- Country
-
That kind of exists, by another rule - you just have to pre-declare spending more MPs than necessary in the next hex. Represents slowing down rather than stopping cold. It makes sense that "delay" can only occur while stopped.
jrv
Forum Guru
You then introduce a second form of gameyness. I move into a hex with a concealed enemy unit for a few MP. If I now discover that this is a unit that I need to "take out," I spend my motion delay points. If not I move on. You are just pushing the gameyness around.
JR
von Marwitz
Forum Guru
As long as you are not in VBM or terrain in which a VCA change might require a Bog Check, you can just switch back and forth your VCA to 'burn' MP's within the given rules set. Possible hazards: If you need to burn an uneven number, you could end up with your VCA not being able to end up facing the direction you want it. Or, during the process, you might present your opponent with a Target Facing which is more favorable to him.
von Marwitz
Last edited:
Tuomo
Keeper of the Funk
Can't I voluntarily spend more MP than necessary to change TCA? ;-)
No, I know I can't. That's the thing, though. Rather than enable this kind of silliness, I'd rather just allow the unused MP to be spent where the vehicle ends its MPh, whether in Motion or not. Yes, that's not what the rules allow. I'm just explaining the lure of playing it lazy. Because it avoids this kind of gamey machination.