Has the discussion of the bridge TEM changed your mind?

[David Goldman]

Larry,

I disagree with your analysis that it would not make a difference in many scenarios. If a scenario requires control of the entrance and exit hexes of a bridge, In Front of the Storm comes to mind, then the last turn rush to get to the other side with at least one MMC has certainly been made a lot tougher by the new errata.

That being said, I happen to agree with the errata even though I played it otherwise until now. Seems to me that if you can see down a bridge there just aren't a lot of places you can hide and move forward from.

David Goldman

 

[Larry]

I agree that it will make a difference in a close scenario. The number that are close is the real question. I played A104 in a tourney earlier this year. In a close scenario, it might tip it to the Germans, instead of the dead heat that it is currently according to ROAR. Using the VASLized map with the bridge overlay, the only hexes that look down the road are 40I4 though 40I7. Those are pretty easy to suppress. The changes in PM probably hurt the French more.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Using the VASLized map with the bridge overlay, the only hexes that look down the road are 40I4 though 40I7. Those are pretty easy to suppress. The changes in PM probably hurt the French more.

There are of course other hexes that can put residual into the bridge location.

Regardless of whether one thinks that the -1 for firing down the road is a new rule or not, the fact that the new rules text makes it apply for residual fp as well is (as far as i can see) a 100% new rule that there wasn't any hint of in the old rules/charts/etc.

Obviously the discussion hasn't changed my mind and references to an overrun rule or some rules in chapter G (that wasn't even written when chapter B was) doesn't change my mind.

IMHO, the "LOS" part on the Chaper Divider was probably a typo and should have been "FFMO".

Of course MMP might have though so themselfs but actually thought that the TEM for a Bridge should be -1.

 

[Calimero]

Perry does not strike me as passive-aggressive. I wager that he will make an affirmative statement one way or the other.

Larry,
I don't criticize Perry and I actually thank him for the support provided, but ...
Perry is not exactly verbose on any subject in his posts (not a critic either: he might just as well have more pressing matters). And the other thing that struck me the other day, is that, on CSW for example, while all game sub-forums are the place for designers to explain their choices and discuss their motives with players, the ASL sub-forum is no such place. Rule issuesare debated, but design intend is not. It is usually dismissed (either by Brian Youse because "ask Perry" or by Bruce Probst because "it's the way it is").
So ASL seems to be, from my perception, in the unique situation of having the largest ruleset around and the smallest margin for rules discussion with designers. Again it is note a question of poll or democratic change in the rule, just a matter of opened discussion between designers/developpers and players.

If you want my opinion on the subject today, I'd say that this change will impact the way we play and will unbalance some scenarios that have been around for a long time. I also believe it was rushed and the errata comittee did not consider all intricacies ofthis new -1TEM to residual. Fixing a chart by reverting a 7-year-old statement and introducing a new way of managing residual does not sound very effective nor very elegant. YMMV.
I also believe that the errata will eventually stand and will not be reverted after all this discussion has worn out. So I'll get over it and play it this way even if it feels wrong.

Rgds,
jp

 

[Coenedens]

I don't see why you would vote on it, if you haven't played a single scenario with a bridge and have no idea of the significance of this mistakenly issued errata.

Oh...! :crosseye:
I'm really sorry, Mark! I've played several scenarios with bridges. The one that I remember most is n.8 (I've played it lot of times in the far past). The last I've played is n.75, in march/april of this year, Strangers in a Strange Land, but the bridge that's there plays a role that is not as relevant as those in n.8.

I thought that the question was about if I've played any scenario with bridges after the new errata (i.e. with the -1 TEM) has become official.

Please, excuse me, Mark! :halo:

Ale

 

[ecz]

I've voted entry #2. I've interpreted it as "I accept the Errata and I'll play with bridges at -1 TEM" (I think it's not extremely accurate write "I do not care" in opposition to "I do not like"; I would have liked to have three choices: against, in favor, neutral; now, instead, it seems to have to choose between against and neutral).

I've not played yet a scenario with a bridge. Probably I would try scenario 8, The Fugitives, to check how much it has been changed with this errata. I don't think it has changed dramatically, as I remember that crossing bridges was already scaring enough for the Germans!

Ale

I voted #2 too.

I have not played many scenarios with a bridge after the *change*: not more than two or three (I remember only T9 and LSSH 28 once or twice) but the -1 there had no application as bridges was happily ignored.

I have not a real idea if it is a good or bad thing or if MMP had good reasons to make the change, however I feel I'm experienced enough to say that the new rule as a very limited impact on balance nine times on ten. I agree sometimes it could alter it (ASL scenario 3 for example).
For these few scenarios a viable soluction could be an errata adding a SSR stating the -1 TEM is NA.

 

[Portal]

Larry,

Sorry for not addressing the OVR rule reference earlier. I've read the rule in the full context of the chapter D paragraph. It seems to me it contributes to the confusion of the actual inherent TEM of bridges, but I don't see anything there which strongly suggests a -1. The rule doesn't refer to bridges alone within its list of examples, so it could be a case of an arbitrary list of terrain types.

But even if you accept that -1 TEM for the purpose of OVR, this still doesn't justify the TEM's applicability to Residual Fire. As pointed out by numerous posters on previous occasions, -1 bridge TEM to Residual Fire is an entirely new rule.

All,

I've played several bridge scenarios where Residual Fire has come significantly into play during attacker bridge crossings (e.g. squad after squad crawling through bridge Residual through Smoke or vehicle wrecks). I know the -1 TEM to Residual would have an effect on those playings.

For what it's worth, I will be avoiding bridge scenarios at tourneys until MMP clears the weather on this one and ends its rule review. In private games, I will ask my opponent before start which version of the rule they would prefer to use. I won't be using this erratum for any scenario in which bridges directly lead to or contribute to scenario VCs until MMP issues a final statement on this topic. If my opponent doesn't like it, I've no problem laying off major bridge crossing scenarios until this MMP decision. Unless we're playtesting the Pegasus Bridge CG at ASLOK, of course...

 

[alanp]

I thought that the question was about if I've played any scenario with bridges after the new errata (i.e. with the -1 TEM) has become official.

Please, excuse me, Mark! :halo:

Ale

Ale, your meaning was clear to me; don't take Mark's short posts too personally if they appear curt!

 

[Larry]

I have been thinking about the RFP issue, indeed I deleted a message detailing an intricate analysis only to discover that it was wrong. Second try ...

TEM usually counts once, not twice in resolving an attack. This applies in ordnance shots (barring CH) and certainly applies in RFP, a la the hexside TEM of walls and hedges. Once the play has accounted for the TEM, it is typically NA.

The default TEM for a bridge is +1. Under limited circumstances, it is now -1. But the default is +1 and an RFP counter traces no LOS and therefore cannot ever meet the requirements of the use of the -1 TEM.

Because the TEM for a bridge is already accounted for in the placement of the RFP counter (either placing half up to 12 of the original attack or adjusting down 1 col. for the bridge TEM), using the TEM again (-1 according to the consensus of those opposed to and ambivalent/supporting the errata) is contrary to the rules. The RFP already took the TEM into account and the resolution of an RFP attack ought not take it into account again.

Therefore, it seems that RFP should ignore the TEM of the bridge. Having reconsidered the issue again, the terrain chart would not justify a -1 for RFP, it should not justify -1 for RFP, and the TEM wether +1 or -1 is already taken into account by the placement of the RFP counter.

Having now rethought and regurgitated by thoughts again, I think that the +1/-1 for bridge attacks is right for fire attacks. As to -1 for RFP, I capitulate, the errata went too far and is wrong.

 

[Portal]

Larry, I believe we've found a playable compromise with respect to this rule.