Grudge Rules as Tournament Rules

[zgrose]

One of my FtF friends had a pop-o-matic die “cup” for ASL and maybe the same or another had this spinny thing. Much fun.

(edit) either way, the goal is to introduce enough variation that the grip or toss of the dice has no bearing on the outcome. Most people get tied up in superstition and emotion.

 

[Psycho]

I'm shocked that Hasbro hasn't leveraged their product's innovative dice rolling mechanism ("Pop-O-Matic") that many of us fondly remember from our childhood days into their MMP offerings.

View attachment 30229

I’ve got a grudge against that game & anyone that likes Trouble!

 

[PresterJohn]

Google dice?

 

[JimWhite]

I’ve got a grudge against that game & anyone that likes Trouble!

Grudgist!...

 

[wrongway149]

One of my FtF friends had a pop-o-matic die “cup” for ASL and maybe the same or another had this spinny thing. Much fun.

(edit) either way, the goal is to introduce enough variation that the grip or toss of the dice has no bearing on the outcome. Most people get tied up in superstition and emotion.

There is a local player who uses one as well. It's actually nice and quick!

 

[wrongway149]

Google dice?

Alexa --can you roll two dice?

" I rolled two six sided dice and got 2 and 5 "

(first is the cdr and second is the wdr .)

 

[footsteps]

Grudgist!...

Grudgephobe!...

 

[Pitman]

However, I realize that ASL have some flaws in the rules (not many, but some), and until the changes are made official (probably never) I will do what I can to make my tournaments as enjoyable as possible for the attendees. And yes, there certainly is a will to make it more historical (eg, no truck driver ever stayed on the battle field after doing their task), but also to not destroy a game with use of game mechanics.

You call them "grudge rules". I would like to call them "Small corrections to create a better and more enjoyable game, that shouldn't impact balance in a negative way, but if used in a bad manner will destroy the game and experience".

Roll low,
/Andreas Carlsson

I've deleted most of your post to make replying more manageable. I appreciate your taking the time to give your views. As I see it, though, the above snippet captures the issue in a nutshell. Per the above, you believe that there are ASL rules that are "flawed" and you have decided to "fix" them in a situation in which you have the power to do so and to make other players play by those "fixed" rules rather than by the official rules. You have not applied them on a rule-by-rule and scenario-by-scenario basis (for example, in scenario X, you should apply rule 2 and rule 3, because experience has shown not to do so breaks the scenario), but across the board, to every scenario.

The thing is, every ASLer has some rules they don't like. In fact, some ASLers have so many rules they don't like that they practically rewrite the whole system with house rules, playing some alt-version of ASL with their buddy that few regular ASLers would even recognize. Of course, what I like and don't like is not necessarily what you like and don't like, and might be different still from what that guy over there likes and doesn't like. Everybody has their own rules opinions. Changing the rules to suit you is fine; you bought the game, you can do what you want with it.

The problem, as I see it, is when you step past your own play universe and start wanting to impose your views on others, to force others play by your house rules because you personally think they are better. Again, it is one thing to add rules to a specific scenario with known issues in order to ensure that it is balanced for players, but quite another to just impose multiple rules on everybody for every scenario.

I've been to around 45 tournaments (including the small one I ran once at Origins). I went to all of them in order to play ASL by the ASL rules, not by house rules.

I'd have no objection to a tournament info sheet that said, "For better enjoyment, we suggest--if you and your opponent agree--the use of the following rules when playing your scenario:" In that instance, it is optional rather than imposed.

 

[Fort]

On what data, experience, or even hearsay do you base this statement?

And in what way would the performance of what the Arnhem rules consider "precision dice" deviate from the performance of casino dice in such a dicetower?

That said, notably the nature of the "required" dicetowers were not specified by the Arnhem tournament rules. If you fear performance issues with casino dice (but not "Arnhem dice") within dice towers, how come you don't fear performance issues of certain dice towers as opposed to others? Or demand some sort of "Arnhem standard precision dice tower"?

We have to remember that we are talking about the difference in outcomes between normal dice and precision dice (and dice towers for that matter...). This difference is meaningless compared to the occasion of when you make a good or bad roll in the game - boxcars make all the difference if they break your one crucial 88ATG but you could not care less whether your PIN result was anything between 8 or 12 for a 7 morale unit.

IMHO the entire precision dice issue is wholly absurd.

von Marwitz

I base my statement on well known studies by many different labs funded by the Nevada gaming commission.

gaming towers are not equal. There are designs that do not adequately randomize the path the dice must take while falling through the tower. A series of the ramp baffles should be at lest 3 ramps with the orientation shifting on multiple planes.

https://www.smartcraps.com/SmartCraps_theory.pd

https://cspages.ucalgary.ca/~cwill/papers/2021/Craps-PER.pdf

https://www.scribd.com/document/499006991/Cheat-Moves

 

[PresterJohn]

Alexa --can you roll two dice?

" I rolled two six sided dice and got 2 and 5 "

(first is the cdr and second is the wdr .)

"And seven is your opponent's SAN "

 

[PresterJohn]

I base my statement on well known studies by many different labs funded by the Nevada gaming commission.

gaming towers are not equal. There are designs that do not adequately randomize the path the dice must take while falling through the tower. A series of the ramp baffles should be at lest 3 ramps with the orientation shifting on multiple planes.

https://www.smartcraps.com/SmartCraps_theory.pd

https://cspages.ucalgary.ca/~cwill/papers/2021/Craps-PER.pdf

https://www.scribd.com/document/499006991/Cheat-Moves

I was surprised to see what might be a semi-official backgammon dice tower with all the baffles in the same forwards direction and no side to side baffles.

 

[STAVKA]

I've deleted most of your post to make replying more manageable. I appreciate your taking the time to give your views. As I see it, though, the above snippet captures the issue in a nutshell. Per the above, you believe that there are ASL rules that are "flawed" and you have decided to "fix" them in a situation in which you have the power to do so and to make other players play by those "fixed" rules rather than by the official rules. You have not applied them on a rule-by-rule and scenario-by-scenario basis (for example, in scenario X, you should apply rule 2 and rule 3, because experience has shown not to do so breaks the scenario), but across the board, to every scenario.

The thing is, every ASLer has some rules they don't like. In fact, some ASLers have so many rules they don't like that they practically rewrite the whole system with house rules, playing some alt-version of ASL with their buddy that few regular ASLers would even recognize. Of course, what I like and don't like is not necessarily what you like and don't like, and might be different still from what that guy over there likes and doesn't like. Everybody has their own rules opinions. Changing the rules to suit you is fine; you bought the game, you can do what you want with it.

The problem, as I see it, is when you step past your own play universe and start wanting to impose your views on others, to force others play by your house rules because you personally think they are better. Again, it is one thing to add rules to a specific scenario with known issues in order to ensure that it is balanced for players, but quite another to just impose multiple rules on everybody for every scenario.

I've been to around 45 tournaments (including the small one I ran once at Origins). I went to all of them in order to play ASL by the ASL rules, not by house rules.

I'd have no objection to a tournament info sheet that said, "For better enjoyment, we suggest--if you and your opponent agree--the use of the following rules when playing your scenario:" In that instance, it is optional rather than imposed.

I appreciate your taking the time to give your views, and will do my best to answer each question.

Per the above, you believe that there are ASL rules that are "flawed" Yes
you have decided to "fix" them Yes
in a situation in which you have the power to do so Yes
to make other players play by those "fixed" rules rather than by the official rules Yes
You have not applied them on a rule-by-rule and scenario-by-scenario basis, but across the board, to every scenario Yes, I thought this was clear, anyhow continue.

The thing is, every ASLer has some rules they don't like Yes
In fact some ASLers have so many rules they don't like that they practically rewrite the whole system with house rules, Yes
playing some alt-version of ASL with their buddy that few regular ASLers would even recognize. Yes, although I do not agree, for you recognize=for us better
Of course, what I like and don't like is not necessarily what you like and don't like, and might be different still from what that guy over there likes and doesn't like. Ok???
Everybody has their own rules opinions. Sure
Changing the rules to suit you is fine; you bought the game, you can do what you want with it. Sure

The problem, as I see it, is when you step past your own play universe and start wanting to impose your views on others, Ok, this is your issue in a nutshell
to force others play by your house rules because you personally think they are better. Sure
Again, it is one thing to add rules to a specific scenario with known issues in order to ensure that it is balanced for players, Ok
but quite another to just impose multiple rules on everybody for every scenario. Ok, well that means more work

I've been to around 45 tournaments (including the small one I ran once at Origins). Right
I went to all of them in order to play ASL by the ASL rules, not by house rules. That`s a good one, "impose your views on others" got it

I'd have no objection to a tournament info sheet that said, "For better enjoyment, we suggest--if you and your opponent agree--the use of the following rules when playing your scenario:" In that instance, it is optional rather than imposed. Ok, your complaints are rather fluffy but contact TDs in the USA about their tournamnet rules, that you are actually planning to attend, perhaps you can make a stronger case for them since you will possibly attend them. You have not been to a tournament since 2015 as per ASL rating, a very long time ago. I wish you - best of luck.

 

[PresterJohn]

So I was wondering if ASL was play tested with the dice that they intended to put in the box, or with some other "precision" dice they found on the proto-internet.
I'd be willing to bet there were a lot of original SL dice involved.

 

[Doug Leslie]

Speaking as someone who has never attended a live tournament and who has only started playing regularly on VASL over the past couple of years, my view is that the ASL rulebook is an incredible piece of work that has largely stood the test of time since it first came out. It is like anything else though: when you try to create a framework for people to abide by, smart people will find ways to to exploit any oversight or loophole and it follows that the more complex the framework, the more loopholes will exist to exploit. Was it the intent of Don Greenwood that unarmed trucks would be used in a completely ahistorical way to charge enemy defences to draw fire from more important units? Perhaps, but I doubt it. More likely, that possibility was just overlooked. Does it spoil the enjoyment of a scenario to remove that option (as, for example, was done by SSR in the classic “Maczek Fire Brigade)”? Does it entail fundamental change to the way the game is played (as would be the case if, for example, a tournament rule prevented “skulking”)? If the answer to both of these questions Is “no”, then I don’t see a problem with making a blanket SSR the default position which both players can depart from if they feel strongly enough about it.

I recently played “Acts of Defiance” as the Russian side in a friendly game. This is a great scenario in which the Germans have the task of eliminating all Good Order Russian MMC from their initial set up area. The Russians start with three tanks sporting hull frontal armour which can (and did!) withstand a hit by a panzerschrek. It seemed to me that one option for the Russian player was to drive one of these babies to a quieter part of the map on the penultimate turn and abandon on the final turn to claim the win. I could see no enjoyment to be derived from winning like that, so I made it clear to my opponent from the outset that I would not be doing any voluntary abandonment. In a tournament setting and in the absence of a standard tournament SSR, it would be a competitive disadvantage to tie my hands like this. Tournaments should be fun to play and any SSR that enhances the fun element by making it the default position that this kind of “sleazy“ tactic is prohibited is fine by me.

 

[Vinnie]

Speaking as someone who has never attended a live tournament and who has only started playing regularly on VASL over the past couple of years, my view is that the ASL rulebook is an incredible piece of work that has largely stood the test of time since it first came out. It is like anything else though: when you try to create a framework for people to abide by, smart people will find ways to to exploit any oversight or loophole and it follows that the more complex the framework, the more loopholes will exist to exploit. Was it the intent of Don Greenwood that unarmed trucks would be used in a completely ahistorical way to charge enemy defences to draw fire from more important units? Perhaps, but I doubt it. More likely, that possibility was just overlooked. Does it spoil the enjoyment of a scenario to remove that option (as, for example, was done by SSR in the classic “Maczek Fire Brigade)”? Does it entail fundamental change to the way the game is played (as would be the case if, for example, a tournament rule prevented “skulking”)? If the answer to both of these questions Is “no”, then I don’t see a problem with making a blanket SSR the default position which both players can depart from if they feel strongly enough about it.

I recently played “Acts of Defiance” as the Russian side in a friendly game. This is a great scenario in which the Germans have the task of eliminating all Good Order Russian MMC from their initial set up area. The Russians start with three tanks sporting hull frontal armour which can (and did!) withstand a hit by a panzerschrek. It seemed to me that one option for the Russian player was to drive one of these babies to a quieter part of the map on the penultimate turn and abandon on the final turn to claim the win. I could see no enjoyment to be derived from winning like that, so I made it clear to my opponent from the outset that I would not be doing any voluntary abandonment. In a tournament setting and in the absence of a standard tournament SSR, it would be a competitive disadvantage to tie my hands like this. Tournaments should be fun to play and any SSR that enhances the fun element by making it the default position that this kind of “sleazy“ tactic is prohibited is fine by me.

To be fair, situations like that should be caught in playtest. It's just sometimes scenarios are so old that these tactics were not thought if then.
I watched Tony and Steve do a playtest where they both noticed the best tactic for the defender was to place his armour right in the back in a gully within woods. Tactically a pointless position but in terms of the scenario, a really good one. The solution was to require a setup requiring Los to a road. Simple and effective but that's why we playtest.

 

[Vinnie]

My one objection to the Arnhrm rules was with trucks.
I like to stash them out of the way but still gave them available to exploit opportunities. If they have been recalled this is not possible.
I do agree that they should not fe available yo use gor overruns. One scenario I tried overrunning a squad stacked with a T34. If I died then he'd likely to be covered by smoke. Doubly sleazy.

 

[Doug Leslie]

To be fair, situations like that should be caught in playtest. It's just sometimes scenarios are so old that these tactics were not thought if then.
I watched Tony and Steve do a playtest where they both noticed the best tactic for the defender was to place his armour right in the back in a gully within woods. Tactically a pointless position but in terms of the scenario, a really good one. The solution was to require a setup requiring Los to a road. Simple and effective but that's why we playtest.

Indeed. “Acts of Defiance“ is a pretty old scenario. If it was devised today, I would be surprised if it didn’t include an SSR to prevent voluntary abandonment.

 

[STAVKA]

My one objection to the Arnhrm rules was with trucks.
I like to stash them out of the way but still gave them available to exploit opportunities. If they have been recalled this is not possible. I do agree that they should not be available to use for overruns.

I tend to agree, its not a tournament rule I use. I like to customize an SSR depending on the scenario in question and sometimes "Recall it is" Although, besides overrun, trucks can be used to cause failure to rout.

 

[STAVKA]

Indeed. “Acts of Defiance“ is a pretty old scenario. If it was devised today, I would be surprised if it didn’t include an SSR to prevent voluntary abandonment.

Although, you can make the AFV Immobile either by ESB or BOG and then spike the gun (disabled) forcing the crew to abandon it, it would be better to add a Tournament rule, that add to the VCs "non-crew" or "non-veh crew".

 

[Vinnie]

I tend to agree, its not a tournament rule I use. I like to customize an SSR depending on the scenario in question and sometimes "Recall it is" Although, besides overrun, trucks can be used to cause failure to rout.

True, although that is a weakness in the rout rules. It should be known Armed enemy unit.