Has the discussion of the bridge TEM changed your mind?

Discussion in 'ASL Rules & Errata' started by SamB, Sep 16, 2006.

Do you want MMP to change the Bridge -1 TEM?

Poll closed Sep 26, 2006.
  1. I want MMP to remove the -1 bridge TEM.

    38 vote(s)
    44.2%
  2. I don't care if they change the TEM.

    48 vote(s)
    55.8%
  1. SamB

    SamB Shut up and play!

    After more than 700 posts discussing the "new" bridge rules. (A -1 TEM in addition to FFMO). Has your opinion changed?

    I'm also trying to get an up-or-down vote, so there are only two options.
     
  2. Jon

    Jon Active Member

    Jul 4, 2005
    Albany, Australia
    I just voted that the -1TEM be removed.
    I think the errata was incorrect and that few if any have played it with a -1TEM other then the FFMO as applicable.
    The bridge counters said 0TEM when LOS was along the road
    Scenarios have been designed without the extra -1, particularly an extra -1 on residual and Firelane attacks.

    To me the bridge TEM errata is equivalent to suddenly deciding that mortars firing smoke can not use multiple ROF :nuts:
     
  3. FrankH.

    FrankH. New Member

    655
    Feb 14, 2003
    New York
    Bridges are major if not critical terrain features in many scenarios.

    I voted for removal of the -1 TEM, but I think is should depend on the "type" of bridge. In other words a -1 TEM might make sense only for narrow bridges at least one hex in length.

    I also think the bridge rules as a whole need to be reviewed and checked for clarity.

    For example, I am always confused in B6.2 as to when a printed bridge is considered a hindrance to same level firers, and when it is not. Is LOS only hindered if drawn through the bridge depiction? If so, this should be clearly stated.

    Frank
     
  4. Swiftandsure

    Swiftandsure Robin Reeve Silver Supporting Member

    Jul 26, 2003
    St-Légier
    My opinion has not changed.
    It has been refined...:rolleyes:
    Though I would have prefered a 0 TEM settlement of the tension between chapter B and the Terrain Chart, I am ready to adapt to a -1 or a 0 TEM final decision.

    What has been refined is :
    - I find that some anti-erratum have overdramatized the topic
    - I find that the arguments in favour of the -1 TEM have some sense : technically, it is an allowable way to settle the rule and I cannot consider it a "change" (in the heaviest meaning)
    - Though I don't like the idea that MMP must submit to what a 'majority' played, I think the "common usage" can be taken in account in a global reflection about a rule clarification.
    However, the "I won't adapt, because I am used to interpret and play the rules differently and won't have it otherwise than my way" sort of argument is total :icon_bs:
    The lobbying via grouped petition lists leaves me with an uneasy feeling... I would be anxious if this would degenerate into a very bad habbit, that would make any decision taking something extremely complicated and annoying...
    - I think that adding some additional "counselors", as Mark proposed, is not a bad idea.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2006
  5. Danish

    Danish CyberASL Open Tournament Director

    Oct 1, 2003
    Denmark
    Couldn't care much. Just let me know what is the rule and I'll play by it.
     
  6. Mister T

    Mister T Well-Known Member Silver Supporting Member

    Aug 12, 2006
    Bruxelles
    This is about changing the "governance" of ASL. Fine. But then:

    - who would be part of this "council of wise men" ?
    - how can they come to a common position ? consensus ? majority voting ?
    - would their common positions be binding ?

    Expanding the proposal a tad would be interesting.
     
  7. Swiftandsure

    Swiftandsure Robin Reeve Silver Supporting Member

    Jul 26, 2003
    St-Légier
    The change would be minor, as there already are some people external from MMP involved, like Ole Boe.
    I believe the way they reach decisions would be the same as it is today (Perry takes the final decision, after having heard the advice of those he submits the rules questions to).
    The result would be, as usual, the publication of errata in the Journal or in an official module.
     
  8. Portal

    Portal The Eminem of ASL

    Feb 26, 2006
    Calgary
    Well, considering I was the one who organized an informal "petition" on this topic, I can inform everyone I intend, and very much prefer, not to be motivated to do this on a regular basis.

    Among all the errata MMP has released for ASL between 1st and 2nd editions and since I began playing the game 10 years ago, this is the first (and hopefully, last) time that I feel MMP blew an erratum call deeply enough to try to rally fellow players around the issue. Beyond just gameplay issues (i.e. this being a mid-edition change that doesn't resolve any broken area of the game), there were what I perceive as deeper rules governance issues around this erratum (i.e. little playtesting, little consulting with prolific bridge scenario designers, insufficient review of all the cross-references within the bridge rules inside the RB as a result of the change, and the fact the chart is still inconsistent with the rules post-erratum) that motivated me enough to wish to contact MMP directly about the issue.

    Fortunately and very positively, this is a very rare event and I don't expect it will become more common in the future. I think everyone involved or affected (as players) by the MMP erratum process has learned from the feedback around this topic.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2006
  9. Tater

    Tater Star Spangled Spud

    Oct 25, 2003
    Ardmore, TN
    Yes, I once only THOUGHT ASL players were freaks...now I KNOW they are! :laugh: :clown: :laugh: :clown:
     
  10. SamB

    SamB Shut up and play!

    But this is totally a matter of opinion. And as of this moment the votes on this poll are exactly 50/50 on changing the errata and leaving it alone. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Portal

    Portal The Eminem of ASL

    Feb 26, 2006
    Calgary
    SamB,

    Sure, it's an opinion. Nobody was claiming it wasn't.

    Just like you have your opinion, I have mine, which appears to be in common with many other players (both on SZO and in RL).
     
  12. Larry

    Larry Active Member

    Oct 29, 2003
    Guada La Habra
    1. Very few bridge scenarios to affect as a percentage of the whole.
    2. Most bridge scenarios are not in the sweet spot of balance anyway.
    3. The look and feel of bridges as a dangerous place to die warrants the rule.
    4. Not one complaint about the rule used any empirical data, just viscera.

    I think that Perry does have his cadre of advisors: Ole and Bruce are definitely on the crew. Perry is not an ASL slouch; he knows the game and how it hangs together.

    And last but not least, Perry and his partners bet their money that they are right, do you?
     
  13. Peebs

    Peebs Active Member

    574
    Nov 14, 2003
    Ohio
    Makes no difference to me. But then I am just returning to this game so my view on this is not tainted by previous playings of the rule.

    Mike
     
  14. Portal

    Portal The Eminem of ASL

    Feb 26, 2006
    Calgary
    A counter to Larry's Top 4:

    1) The fact that the number of ASL scenarios involving major bridge crossings is an overall low ratio to all the scenarios out there is irrelevant to the appropriateness of this rule change. Plenty of scenarios don't involve Narrow Streets, for example, but those rules are not tinkered with casually.

    2) The existing imbalance of bridge scenarios isn't the core issue with respect to scenario balance. The issue is that the bridge TEM change takes a known set of balance results, via ROAR, and takes these scenarios to a new unknown state of balance, of which there is no guarantee of overall balance improvement. Why is it worthwhile to discard this ROAR knowledge to fix a rule which wasn't broken?

    3) Not all bridges are constructed the same, or as dangerous as -1 TEM makes them out to be. Some offer a fair bit of cover at a variety of fire angles. Others not so much. It's purely an arbitrary reality interpretation to claim most bridges are dangerous enough for -1 TEM, with few exceptions. And there's no way to tangibly justify that interpretation.

    4) Not one comment in support of the rule change has used any empirical data to justify its value to the game, just viscera.
     
  15. Larry

    Larry Active Member

    Oct 29, 2003
    Guada La Habra
    So would you object if the side attacking the bridge were favored before and now it is more even?

    That the balance is changed is ... well ... duh. Every rule interpretation/change/etc. tinkers with balance. The PM changes are huge in comparison.

    BTW, every building is constructed differently and I understand from people that have looked into the subject that the incidence of wooden buildings in ASL is way over stated.

    It is about look and feel. Your objections center on a resistance to change, not a dismantling of a finely tuned system. The unumbered points, call them 5 and 6 also beg for a response.
     
  16. Calimero

    Calimero a.k.a "jp"

    551
    Oct 11, 2005
    France
    Well I think that ... Ha well, forget it. :bored:
     
  17. Portal

    Portal The Eminem of ASL

    Feb 26, 2006
    Calgary
    Larry,

    It has nothing to do with personal resistance to change. It has to do with change justifying itself in adding value to whatever it affects. For example, do you change the plumbing in your sink every year when the piping is still getting the job done?

    The J1 Q&A interpretation was working perfectly well. The new change doesn't make the game better. In fact, it adds significant compromises to existing knowledge of scenarios etc.

    I would object if this was accomplished by arbitrary mid-edition rule changes to the entire game, when the superior option is for the scenario designer to revisit and edit his work to make the balance correction as needed.
     
  18. 'Ol Fezziwig

    'Ol Fezziwig Repressed Dissident

    [/QUOTE]2) The existing imbalance of bridge scenarios isn't the core issue with respect to scenario balance. The issue is that the bridge TEM change takes a known set of balance results, via ROAR, and takes these scenarios to a new unknown state of balance, of which there is no guarantee of overall balance improvement. Why is it worthwhile to discard this ROAR knowledge to fix a rule which wasn't broken?[/QUOTE]

    It must be remembered that ROAR is merely a tool, not the font finale of all information. The disparity/level of players, mistakes made during play, DR spread...none are accounted for in ROAR's stark presentation of W/L. It is useful as a piece of information, just not the basis for it.

    I disagree; the abstracted presentation of the reduction of the effective size of a hex due to a bridge is well served by the TEM. The reduction of the target area is uncontested, is it not? That is close enough to 'tangible' for me.
     
  19. Larry

    Larry Active Member

    Oct 29, 2003
    Guada La Habra
    Guide me through this ... how is this "change" any different than any other "change?"

    One fundamental difference is that this rule change had a basis in existing rules structure whereas change to the PM did not. As I look through my copy of Chapter A, 33 of the 61 pages have either errata on them or were replaced with AOO pages. Many of those 33 pages have multiple errata on the page. Some of the sticky errata have more sticky errata on top of it. Chapter A is not alone, we have a lot of errata of variying impact throughout the tome.

    Some of the changes made big changes, some just made the rules more clear.

    And let us not forget the rules changes from v.1 to v.2. Some of those had dramatic impact on game play in the majority of scenarios, not just a few. AM bump comes to mind. For some, the hue and cry about IF was simply deafening, contrary to a Perry Sez, but wholly supported by the rules according to some.

    So balance in bridge scenarios is different. So what? Some will get better, some will get worse, some will have little impact.

    Designers input ... that is still available in the form of reversion. A designer need only say that the TEM on a bridge through the road is "0" and that will be that.

    Perhaps the bridge rules were working perfectly well before J7. That could be said of any rules change. Many lobbied loud and long about the PM changes to prevent them; those are clearly changes to root out what some others thought were sleazy tactics. So adjust your tactics; it really is not that complex.
     
  20. Hugh Downing

    Hugh Downing Member

    191
    Dec 6, 2005
    Port Richey, FL
    Well I guess I will have to finally have my say on this ever popular subject…now hold your breath…I will play the rule as it has been presented (-1 TEM and all that) and will stop playing it when the powers that be change it.

    Love the rules and love the game

    Hugh
     

Share This Page