Grudge Rules as Tournament Rules

[bprobst]

I have read people describe rules from the current rule book as "grudge rules".

Anyone who did so doesn't understand the term and, I suspect, doesn't understand the rules very well either.

 

[Honza]

Plusgood Rules

Feelgood rules....

 

[Fort]

So I have been to few tournaments in Scandinavia. I have been to Albany. These SSRs are no big deal. They are published well in advance and are posted publicly on the their web sites. If we trust the TD to pick a list of scenarios then we should trust them to understand how the SSRs affect balance.

IMO, this whole thread is a tempest in a teapot. SSRs change the rules all the time. You trust the designer to get those right. Why not extend the same trust to the TD? -- jim

100% agree.

 

[PresterJohn]

Anyone who did so doesn't understand the term and, I suspect, doesn't understand the rules very well either.

That is why I was surprised to see the term used that way. However I don't intend to call them out because their frustration with the rule may have caused them to overly degrade it.

 

[Vinnie]

I don't have a problem with the tournament dice rules. I don't think they ever came into effect at Arnhem.
I like my battleschool dice but know dome people do not. If I insist on playing with them and my opponent refuses to let me, the existence of this rule clarifies what happens. Without it, someone's nose is going to be out of joint.

 

[Actionjick]

Ye

I think that was Fish’s rule.

I used a variety of dice, none precision. Fish used a white die and a yellow one. I don't know where my BV went to.

 

[pensatl1962]

If some people are really concerned about disparity of fairness between two sets of dice (e.g., the notion that someone would bring trick dice to what is supposed to be a fun and collegial event), then a surefire way to remove such disparity would be for both players to use the same set of dice. In professional sports, teams use the same ball to remove this possibility of unfainess (okay, maybe Tom Brady excepted). I have been flamed on in the past for suggesting this. Now personally, I don't give a rat's posterior about the other players dice and I do like to use my own dice and dice tower. But this is a solution short of running all sorts of Chi-square tests to evaluate fairness. Another solution is to just not sweat it and play the game.

 

[wrongway149]

If some people are really concerned about disparity of fairness between two sets of dice (e.g., the notion that someone would bring trick dice to what is supposed to be a fun and collegial event), then a surefire way to remove such disparity would be for both players to use the same set of dice.

When my opponent asks to use my dice, I certainly allow it. Then we he gets all the three's and I get the elevens and twelves, it only supports what I knew all along --that my dice are, in fact, BIASED.

Against ME!

 

[Toby Pilling]

Silly rules that exist in the game can mostly be exploited by the more skilful players, who recognise when to use them to their advantage. Better Rules can therefore defend weaker tournament players from such sleaze.

In a competitive game between two good players, Better Rules also protects both of them from having to resort to dishonorable tactics (feeling grubby in the bargain), or resentful when such gamesmanship is used against them.

They are very useful for all tournaments.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Silly rules that exist in the game can mostly be exploited by the more skilful players, who recognise when to use them to their advantage. Better Rules can therefore defend weaker tournament players from such sleaze.

Who decides between "silly" and "better" rules?
A less experienced player will be beaten by a more experienced player who knows how to play the system better.
That is how one learns and improves one's gaming skills.
Trying to protect newbies is actually preventing them from improving.
Let them see a skilled VBM Freeze manœuver, an intelligent skulking tactic, a surprising control of a building by a vehicular crew which just jumped off a runaway halftrack: they will first hate it; then analyze the moves, adapt and finally overcome those tricks.
Next step, they will learn to apply them skilfully against other newbies.
They don't need to be nutured as if they were toddlers.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Who decides between "silly" and "better" rules?

The Tournament Director(s).

Apparently

 

[Robin Reeve]

The Tournament Director(s).

Apparently

Could they occasionally, per chance, be silly themselves?

 

[Larry]

David Goldman runs the very fun eASL tournament. His house rules:

Mandatory Tournament Rules

1. Pleva OBA* and Radio Rules**.
2. Only one bog DR when AFV’s entering a wire hex (vehicle covered arc changes are not allowed to possibly eliminate wire).
3. No AFV abandonment unless immobilized or out of gas (exception HT’s and Carriers).
4. No kindling unless specifically allowed in SSRs.
5. If ATTACKER declares CE and BFF attack simultaneously, the DEFENDER can attempt DFF vs. the CE AFV based on the preceding MP expenditure, before the ATTACKER can BFF.
6. For vehicular mounted FT TK attempt vs an enemy AFV, the following TK DRM apply:

CASE A DRMs
Firer in Motion +2
Target in Motion +2
Concealed AFV +2
An original DR of 2 is always a Burn result and an original DR of 3 is always an Elim result if not already a Burn result.
7. MOL usage against empty hexes is NA.

Every time you draw a red card (including the first red card), put it back along with another red card. The battery is never lost due to drawing two red cards. Extra card draw mechanics remain the same. *Radios and phones repair on a 1-2 and a 6 will not X.


Turns out these types of TSR (tournament special rules) are not unique.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I have read people describe rules from the current rule book as "grudge rules".

One or two of the fellows responding to you apparently never played the original SL and may be unaware of the rich history of the development of the rules and were too quick to respond. I'm not sure which rules you're referring to, but it is very fair to say the ASL rules were written not just as a compilation of the four original rulebooks, but in some cases as a response to criticisms of the original game. If that is how the term "grudge" is being applied, then it is apt. And we know this is so because Jon Mischon talked about it when ASL came out back in 1985.

As an example, a squad pushing a piece of ordnance in the original game had to base success or failure on their morale level, leaving some nationalities (most notably the Americans) at a disadvantage when performing labor tasks. The question was rightly asked during the redesign why Americans would be disadvantaged like this. (And from a realism standpoint, the US rifle squad of 12 men when at full strength outnumbered that of their allies and adversaries who hovered at 9 or 10 men, so the accuracy of the simulation fell apart even more.) The rewrite gave us the Manhandling number, and success or failure shifted from the morale of the squad, to the size of the ordnance, which made much more sense.

You could probably get away with calling C10.3 a "grudge" for that reason, as it was almost certainly created in response to criticisms of the original game.

 

[wrongway149]

It's his signature move. Any ASL stuff he "reviews" on his site that he doesn't like the look of, he immediately throws out aspersions about the decisions behind it and the quality of the playtesting or just flat out states that it was thrown together without any thought or testing even though in many cases, it is demonstrably not true. To my mind, playtesting only catches so much, and even mainstream publishers can only do so much with their playtesters.

If every scenario that got published had enough playtesting to guarantee even 55-45% balance, we would get maybe 10 new scenarios each year.

The first part is: it's a moving target. Test, change, test, change. How many times does that final version get tested?

 

[pensatl1962]

ASLRB Index (p.15):

"House Rules (any mutually agreed upon method for speeding up play, or adjusting the official rules for a particular group's own enjoyment or convenience)..."

Seems to me that tournament SSRs fit under this.

"mutually agreed upon"
"adjusting the official rules"
"for a particular group's"
"own enjoyment or convenience"

 

[Mister T]

At the end of the day, it is up to the TD to manage HIS event; he is working hard to organise an event for others. He doesn't have to pay allegience to anyone. He has to strike a careful balance between what he thinks would be better for tournament play and the risk of making players unhappy. He should assess this special rule by special rule. His only duty is to inform well in advance through appropriate channels potential attendees.

 

[Jazz]

It's his signature move. Any ASL stuff he "reviews" on his site that he doesn't like the look of, he immediately throws out aspersions about the decisions behind it and the quality of the playtesting or just flat out states that it was thrown together without any thought or testing even though in many cases, it is demonstrably not true. To my mind, playtesting only catches so much, and even mainstream publishers can only do so much with their playtesters.

And one needs look no further than Mark's own oeuvre to see complaints about balance among his designs which could very easily subject him to the same criticisms he so frequently hurls at others.

For giggles, I took a look at his scenarios at the archive. I had quite forgotten I had personally logged a play of one of his "free scenarios" from his Designers Guide:

https://www.aslscenarioarchive.com/scenario.php?id=59671

View attachment 30191

ROAR has this one as 8 Japanese wins to 1 Indonesian. In our playthrough, the only one recorded at the archive, Colin managed to eke a last CC-phase win as the Indonesian despite Malf both AFV MA. We decided the scenario was a dog despite the result. More importantly, we had fun, because it was ASL.

So did Mark playtest this one at all? It would be very easy to hurl his signature criticism back in his face based on the feedback of all his scenarios to date. Archive user Kermit Mullens posted this just last May about another of Mark's designs:

Well that was a game of ASL. My SS are still scratching their heads on what to do differently to get across the bridge. By Turn 4, I was still not across the bridge and still facing Partisans on the north side. So, did the math and gave the concession. Not sure how the Germans are supposed to win this one with roadblocks, HIP Partisans., who are Fanatic with 3 Panzerfausts and a nice German HMG with a 9-2 directing it for fun. And so far ROAR seems to confirm that this is a Partisan gimme

Personally, I think the whole notion of "playtesting" is just something Mark holds over everyone else without really much understanding its limitations. That would certainly apply with regards to his critique of tournament rules. To answer your question more directly: of course Mark will simply assume the worst of anyone doing something not completely to his liking. It's his schtick. When a liberal doesn't like your stance on an issue (any issue) he calls you a racist. And if he doesn't like your scenario or tournament rules, he shits on your playtesting.

Boy, Pittman rears up his head and look what crawls out of the wood work....this should be good sport.

 

[Blaze]

If some people are really concerned about disparity of fairness between two sets of dice (e.g., the notion that someone would bring trick dice to what is supposed to be a fun and collegial event), then a surefire way to remove such disparity would be for both players to use the same set of dice. In professional sports, teams use the same ball to remove this possibility of unfainess (okay, maybe Tom Brady excepted). I have been flamed on in the past for suggesting this. Now personally, I don't give a rat's posterior about the other players dice and I do like to use my own dice and dice tower. But this is a solution short of running all sorts of Chi-square tests to evaluate fairness. Another solution is to just not sweat it and play the game.

JIM! Your dice and dice tower roll 3's half the time. I would like them myself. Infact, you should put a set in your will for me.


I really trust the integrity of the person I'm playing. I really doubt someone would use loaded dice. BUT if they did. Oh well. It might be another lose in a list of meany for me, I'd just shrug it off. HOWEVER, I suspect the person cheating would have to live with the fact they are a cheat. My 2-dollar set of multicolored Chesex Dice work well enough for me conversely, they work pretty well AGAINST me.

I prefer to play the game as written and the scenarios, as written. That said I could not care less if someone running a tournament has field rules, SSR, or whatever as long as they are posted well in advance for those potential attendees. I guess if my panties get all knotted over it, I'll simply not go.

I think Marks original point is that those groups/clubs that host are used to those special SSR's and would have an advantage as they have many more hours of gaming those rules in. That may be so, and I would agree with Mark there.

Myself, If I traveled to Arnhem, sure I'd play my best. But winning losing is irrelevant to me. It would be a trip of having fun and meeting new friends.

My 2 cents (adjusted for inflation)

 

[Vic Provost]

If every scenario that got published had enough playtesting to guarantee even 55-45% balance, we would get maybe 10 new scenarios each year.

The first part is: it's a moving target. Test, change, test, change. How many times does that final version get tested?

Totally agree, we do 4 scenarios at a time for Dispatches and they usually get 4 to 6 playings in house before being sent out to the 10 to 20 playtesters that help us out most issues. So we usually get 8 to 12 playings done of every scenario that comes out in Dispatches, we don't have time for much more than that and by the time they get wrapped up, we at least have a clue on what is going on in it. For anyone who complains about scenario balance, YOU test it several times and come back with constructive advice of how to fix it, just don't complain about it. The more playtesters involved, the better but there are only so many to go around...