Has the discussion of the bridge TEM changed your mind?

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

  • I want MMP to remove the -1 bridge TEM.

    Votes: 38 44.2%
  • I don't care if they change the TEM.

    Votes: 48 55.8%

  • Total voters
    86
  • Poll closed .

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
As practical example in the recent Canadian ASL Open this past week-end I played the German in The Bridge of Verdalsora J36....
Besides Bill's game this past weekend there was also a second game being played of Bridge at Verdalsora. In that game the German also got across the bridge relatively unscathed and only lost because he could not manage to pass the NMCs and 1MCs hurled at him by the Norwegians and British. This is actually a good scenario that demonstares how much this rule is a non-event,...the bridge here is quite long and yet both Germans were able to cross by nullifying the worst effects of an opposed bridge defence.

Your mileage may vary. :)
 

jimfer

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
875
Reaction score
231
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Country
llUnited States
I think the rule will have an effect on games in the long run. I think the asl community should get together and make October Bridge month. Everyone play bridge scenarios and report on how the extra -1 changed the game or did not change the game. Urban Guerillas anyone?

Jimfer
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,791
Reaction score
384
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
I think the rule will have an effect on games in the long run. I think the asl community should get together and make October Bridge month. Everyone play bridge scenarios and report on how the extra -1 changed the game or did not change the game. Urban Guerillas anyone?
Actually, yesterday was "Talk like a Pirate day".

How does a pirate get around?

In a CAAAARRRGGHH!

On vacation?

In an AAAAARRRRRGGH V !!!


As of now, we're 35 to 35 on changing the rule or leaving it alone. Hardly a ground swell of support....
 

jimfer

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
875
Reaction score
231
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Country
llUnited States
I agree with Sam's observations, however a stalemate will not satisfy either side. Let everone play well proven scenarios and report. A large number of AWE Sh$t reports may prove it will change the balance. I think people will change the way they approach bridge scenarios and change their tactics.

2cents...Jimfer
 

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
56
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
So much of this stalemate could be alleviated if MMP would simply release a non-debatable statement of why it chose to overrule the J1 Q&A interpretation and change the rule.

There very well could be a good reason for all of this. But it's never been provided.
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,791
Reaction score
384
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
So much of this stalemate could be alleviated if MMP would simply release a non-debatable statement of why it chose to overrule the J1 Q&A interpretation and change the rule.

There very well could be a good reason for all of this. But it's never been provided.
Bogus... There is NO SUCH THING as a "non-debatable" statement with this group.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Let everone play well proven scenarios and report. A large number of AWE Sh$t reports may prove it will change the balance. I think people will change the way they approach bridge scenarios and change their tactics.
Unlikely Jimfer. The nay-sayers could just as easily dismiss any positive results as "not what I see" and continue the argument. Granted that two games does not prove the point by I also played J36 about a year or so ago and I also lost as the German because I could not pass the MCs, not because of the -1 bridge TEM. There were also three games (or was it two) of "Sweep for Borj Toum Bridge" played last weekend (a very large scenario) and in that one I do not even think the Germans even got close enough to the bridge for it to matter. How many games will it take in how many scenarios before those who cannot accept the clarification yield the point? :)

Me thinks it is the *idea*of, or fear of, a -1 that is most upsetting, not the actual result within any particular scenario.
 

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
56
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
SamB,

When I mean "non-debatable", I mean "not open for discussion" from MMP's perspective. Sure, people will have their opinions. But once MMP explains themselves, it's their choice whether they wish to listen or not.

The Purist,

You may be comfortable with the -1 bridge TEM. But let's keep the language of discussion honest: it's not a "clarification". Because of the overrule of J1 Q&A and the new application of TEM to Residual Fire, this is a rule change. Very different beast.
 

Calimero

a.k.a "jp"
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
551
Reaction score
52
Location
France
Country
llFrance
The new TEM is a change and has an impact. A -1 always have, otherwise we wouldn't feel happy when a 8-0 battle hardens to an 8-1. The extend of that change is not assessed yet. But equating "non-assessed" to "nil" is incorrect.

Besides, it would have been nice to have some designer's notes from MMP to know why they reverted a previous ruling. True, the J1 referred to ed1. However, facing the same situation, same data and same need for clarifying, MMP gave two different answers. They might have a decisive argument on why, which we are still to hear.
Finally, I do find dangerous that basic rules are changed on the only basis of percieved 'realism'.

Apart from that, I will play with the -1TEM from now on, because it is now The Rule.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,556
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
the asl community should get together and make October Bridge month
I have a better idea.
Let us apply that sort of test to each erratum.
That will have a wonderfull effect :
1) This will limit errata numbers to 12 per year (as there are only 12 months in a year)
2) We will puff up our feeling of importance (that will compensate all the scenarios we loose)
3) We will from then on know how to spend all that spare time and energy we don't know what to do with
4) MMP will now kneel down and obey "US"...:devious:
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,791
Reaction score
384
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
SamB,

When I mean "non-debatable", I mean "not open for discussion" from MMP's perspective. Sure, people will have their opinions. But once MMP explains themselves, it's their choice whether they wish to listen or not.
This is already the case. MMP has issued eratta saying that there is a -1 TEM on a bridge. This makes the rule text consistent with what the TEM chart has always said. There is nothing "debatable" about errata. But you are NOT saticfied.

And it is a rule "change" or a "clarification" depending upon your point of view.
 

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
56
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
SamB,

You are in error. MMP has already publically announced that this rule change is under review. It has not been retracted (yet?), but at the very least, there must be some form of internal debate going on (even if in Perry's head alone).

But I was referring to the "non-debatability" of the explanation / designer's notes, not the rule itself. So please read more closely before flying off the handle.

BTW - There is no doubt this is a rule change. Even if you accept the argument, "all ASLRB1 Q&A have no validity in 2nd edition", there was absolutely no precedent for -1 TEM applying to Residual Fire on bridges (the cryptic chart never offered that in either edition). There's at least one change right there.
 
Last edited:

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
Finally, I do find dangerous that basic rules are changed on the only basis of percieved 'realism'.

Platoon Movement
Upper-level encirclement
Human Waves
Hedgerows/WA

...all these were changed to change 'unrealistic' behavior issues. Let's not forget that ASL, despite the claims of "abstraction" and/or "design for effect" finds it basis for those abstractions and design effects, rooted firmly in realism.
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
But I was referring to the "non-debatability" of the explanation / designer's notes, not the rule itself.
This hasn't been done often (if at all) in the past; I don't expect to see it done here. To do so would only open up MMP's decision(-s/making process) to external debate; they have no room, no time or desire for compromise in the process, I suspect.

BTW - There is no doubt this is a rule change. Even if you accept the argument, "all ASLRB1 Q&A have no validity in 2nd edition", there was absolutely no precedent for -1 TEM applying to Residual Fire on bridges (the cryptic chart never offered that in either edition). There's at least one change right there.
By inference, the characteristics of boulevards would seem to apply here. Even if not technically correct, the addition of the TEM to residual fire on bridges is, itself, a precedent; you have to start somewhere...
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,735
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
But I was referring to the "non-debatability" of the explanation / designer's notes, not the rule itself. So please read more closely before flying off the handle.

How do you explain G13.7 (All rules for non-pontoon bridges apply to piers except as stated otherwise) with G13.72 TEM (A pier Location is Open Ground with a 0 TEM). If the pier is a bridge and a bridge has a 0 TEM, the that portion of G13.72 is redundant surplusage that is worthless.

How do you explain D7.15 (overrun on a bridge gets the -1 FFMO and the bridge TEM). Well, if the bridge were just 0 TEM OG, there would be no need for a cumulative reference. Is D7.15 in error? Or is it an indication that the chart is correct and that the V.1 Q&A was ... (drum roll please) ... wrong.

:smoke:
 

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
56
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
'Ol Fezziwig,

MMP can choose to ignore any "noise" from players, fans, etc. any time they like. The likely possibility of fan response is no legitimate reason not to issue a brief explanation when making changes to the rules.

In fact, reasonable precedence for issuing some kind of note has already been set by all the designer's notes in the ASLRBs.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
How do you explain G13.7 (All rules for non-pontoon bridges apply to piers except as stated otherwise) with G13.72 TEM (A pier Location is Open Ground with a 0 TEM). If the pier is a bridge and a bridge has a 0 TEM, the that portion of G13.72 is redundant surplusage that is worthless.
Such "redundant surplusage" can be found through out the ASLRB. Odds are that the writers of different sections probably included some verbiage for no other reason than CYA. IOW, I wouldn't put much stock in "redundancy" as a rules argument.

How do you explain D7.15 (overrun on a bridge gets the -1 FFMO and the bridge TEM). Well, if the bridge were just 0 TEM OG, there would be no need for a cumulative reference. Is D7.15 in error? Or is it an indication that the chart is correct and that the V.1 Q&A was ... (drum roll please) ... wrong.
See above...

Redundancy indicates nothing other than that the writer was...well, redundant.

And, before you type your rebutal...I am not arguing for/against the -1...I am good with it either way it goes. :)
 

alanp

Philosopher of ASL
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
2,998
Reaction score
93
Location
Alki Point
Country
llUnited States
In a previous post, I noted the problem with Chapter G and this ruling/clarification/change with the Panji rules. Chapter G is 1st Ed. and I'd assume J1 errata still apply. Larry has brought up another problem with his Pier rule reference. [His quoting of D7.15 is the strongest argument for the change I've seen, IMO.] Let's face it, there are inconsistencies in the ASLRB. It's great when an erratum clears them up. The chapter B rules, the bridge counter and the Chapter B divider were inconsistent: J7 chose one over two and this causes problems with Residual Fire rules, Chapter G and is directly opposite of a previous ruling. That's why I don't like it. This debate has clarified the sides' arguments for me--thanks to all who've stated their reasons--but hasn't changed my dislike of the J7 erratum.

Kudos to portal and Calimero for holding their own with some strong opposition from guys I respect!
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,791
Reaction score
384
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
But I was referring to the "non-debatability" of the explanation / designer's notes, not the rule itself. So please read more closely before flying off the handle.

I'll don't think you have seen me fly off the handle.

I stand by my earlier statement. Your request for a "non-debatable" explaination is bogus. There is no such animal. Everything is debatable with this crowd. And this is especially true when the subject is everyone's "feelings" about what is or is not "realistic".

I would go so far as to say that you would not be saticfied with an additional statement from MMP on this issue. And I know that MMP is reviewing this. So what?
 
Top