Ideas from The Last Hundred Yards

[chief2000]

Having purchased and played LHY, I was just wondering if anyone thought that the initiative and coordination rules might be suitable for adapting to ASL. Seems to me an easy add-on without ruining the elegance and realism of the system. Comments, anyone?

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

IIRC, the rules for The be Last 100 Yards are available for download on GMTs website. Maybe a look is in order?

 

[Bill Kohler]

Deleted my post. Carry on.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

I'm not a topic cop: I remembered being interested in TLHY when it was in development and I actually may have an early version of the rules somewhere. Never got to far as i recall, but, in all honesty, it's was meant as a be suggestion for you to explore if interested...or not.

I, too, wished for an brief explanation of what the OP was thinking, but left it for another day to explore myself.

 

[Vic Provost]

I took a look at the rules, I'll stick with ASL, a 2nd system to learn will just cause me confusion. Good luck to those who try...

 

[ParaMarine]

I would be willing to replace SASL’s rules so I have less individual unit rolls to make. And I would be willing to implement them into the standard game.

I’m not big on altering rules. The only heresy I subscribe to is adding a RoF dice. But still the fundamental problem with ASL is perfect command and control. If there would exist a streamlined (meaning something besides rolling for each unit) way to limit your moves, I would definitely consider implementing it.

 

[gorkowskij]

Although ASL lacks a rule titled “Command and Control” it has many rules that reflect command and control issues. Examples include: breaking, berserk, concealment, cowering, pinning, platoon movement, road bonus, routing (especially when properly implemented), straying, weapon malfunction, reduced MP for inexperienced infantry, and a remedy to all with leadership presence – to name a few. Keep in mind that ASL is a “bottom up” depiction of the battlespace rather than a “top down” depiction in which a rule titled command and control would be more appropriate.

 

[ParaMarine]

I’m always going to think of it is a minor complaint anyways. One thing I’m not going to do is use the SASL rules because that’s just a bigger time waster in a game that already has a problem with too many pauses for rules references. It’s not the reason I like to have opponents.

 

[olli]

Not something that is needed to be added, feel free to use as a house rule, it would change the playability of the 8,000 scenarios out there and battlefield Integrity could be used instead, although not many people are interested in using that either……

 

[chief2000]

Thanks for all the helpful comments, guys!