Most annoying rule . . .

[AdrianE]

We already have a mechanism for MMC to self rally. You know that 1 MMC that we are permitted to attempt a self rally for in our own rally phase. The one that we hope generates a leader but usually gets a boxcars. Yeah that one.

 

[Robin Reeve]

There are so many factors, when one speaks of morale, that I believe one should not try to change the rules : it would tip the balance of many scenarios...
It is always frustrating to see units refuse to stand up and obey, but that is one good feature in ASL : try to manage out with partially unreliable forces...

Just a note about time : the "2,5 minute turn" is also an abstraction... in fact, a turn could as well be evaluated at 20-30 minutes, as many "dead times" occur on the battlefield (rallying a unit or repairing a SW, not speaking of a cautious advance, take more than a couple of seconds)... but changing things (e.g. MP and MF allotment, just because a 30 minute turn could potentially lead a unit to move, unhindered, much further than in 3 minutes) would create more problems than it would resolve...

The "miracle" with ASL is that it leads to a global simulation, with results quite near to reality.
I remember a thread where some were complaining about insufficient MGs given to the German, etc.
The problem is that, if one tries to "adapt" to "reality" (= the reality one believes he masters! :roll: ), many things should be changed (e.g. modify the results on the IFT, which could become too "bloody" if one was to globally boost the FP of units) and the result would be a different game - and, I bet it, quite boring and even more complicated...

This thread is about "anoying" rules : not because they don't "stick" to our "reality feeling", but because they are difficult to play.

 

[Larry]

The most annoying rules no one uses. Battlefield integrity comes to mind. Cumbersome bookkeeping and little joy. Others have said in the past that scenarios are not even balanced with this rule in mind.

Morale and DM, cowering, weapon repair, terrain, etc. give more to the game than they add in complexity. The bottom line is that this is a game and this is the way that it is played.

Example from outside of ASL: my son is 7 and plays baseball. In his age division, they use a pitching machine. You get three swings or 5 pitches whichever occurs first, unless you foul off the last pitch. Sometimes the wheel throws the ball over the kid's head on right onto the plate. The last pitch was not hittable but the kid is out. That is an annoying rule but it balances out. Otherwise coaches would debate endlessly whether their kid could have hit a pitch.

Want to play a game, play by the rules. Want to engage in real combat ... enlist. Want to simulate real combat, well I haven't seen a board game that is not an abstraction that warps reality on some levels to highlight others. This is squad leader to emphasize the role of squad leaders on the game.

 

[Bryan Holtby]

Ole, Joe's posts often have the same theme to them.....the game isnt accurate enough in one way or another.....some that come to mind are the "not enough variation in german squad values" thread and the "lack of machine guns in the OOBs" thread. The replies to the posts are almost always the same, the game is an abstraction or you cant change the game without destroying the balance of a thousand scenarios. Joe did a lot of research to back up his machine gun thread and is correct, BUT ultimately the game is, once again, an abstraction of reality and not an exact representation. Scenario's are not exact, if they were we would already know the outcome :lol:

I'm sure others are as frustrated with me and my VASL dicebot rants (Sam comes to mind :lol: ) as I am with Joe's posts. Reality and ASL dont belong in the same sentence, and maybe not even the same chapter.

There are LOTS of things in ASL that bug me, like the ROF die being part of the hit resolution. Why should a CH guarentee you rate? Wouldnt it be better to use a third die to represent ROF? Panther armour, the G model had a stronger mantlet and the shot trap was mostly eliminated so the G should have its own counter with an uncircled 18, they also had a better tranny so the stall roll should be eliminated on the G. IS-2m's had lighter armour on their gun mantlet than is depicted on the counter, this was a known weakness and the German tankers were told to aim for it. A Jagdpanther could rotate 90 degrees on its tracks and regain its stability (not rocking on its suspension) faster than a Panther could rotate its turret 90 degrees, is this represented by the TH mod's? Nope.

Love to see all these things changed, will they? Nope. Why not? because it will likely unbalance all the scenarios already created. Does it bother me that they wont? Nope again. The game works as it is, there are few things that need even minor tweaking. The IIFT was a nice addition (although I dont use it much), new human wave rules too.

The only way to get the level of detail and accuracy that Joe wishes to find in ASL is for him to switch to miniatures. I have a manual for such a game, and it is DREADFUL, there must be 100 pages of rules for tanks alone, and a good dozen of them are penetration tables.

 

[Ole Boe]

Ole, Joe's posts often have the same theme to them.....

OK, I didn't understand the reaction based on this single post from Joe, but I know that enough posts of a type from the same person may provoke such reactions. I haven't read Joe's earlier posts so I will refrain from trying to judge whether the reactions from you and others were justified or not.

 

[Nat Mallet]

I don't see why you have to jump on JoeCleere and tell him that he no longer plays ASL, or that he should play another game.

Agreed. If someone wants to change 90% of the rules for their house games because 90% of the rules annoy them, they should feel free to do so.

But that's a bit off topic.

To get back to the topic, the DM rule doesn't bother me, but the fact that DM is automatically reapplied when a broken squad is fired on, annoys me. I find it a bit excessive.

Critical Hit and cowering result from snake-eyes also bother me somewhat. Cowering should not apply in this case. I'd be curious to hear how the designers' opinion on this one.

Nat

 

[Ole Boe]

To remain on-topic:

I guess my current no.1 rule is the Platoon Movement rules, that allows two adjacent stopped AFVs (with or without radios) to freely lay smoke, change VCA, start, move to another hex and change VCA, all before any defender may fire, just by using PM.
This allows the AFVs to slip away from a certain death, by getting the desired VCA in the defender's direction, as well as getting the +2 Moving Target modifier, and even possibly move out of LOS.

But there's fortunately reason to hope that there will be official errata to this... 8)

 

[ON TOP ASL]

Panther armour, the G model had a stronger mantlet and the shot trap was mostly eliminated so the G should have its own counter with an uncircled 18, they also had a better tranny so the stall roll should be eliminated on the G. IS-2m's had lighter armour on their gun mantlet than is depicted on the counter, this was a known weakness and the German tankers were told to aim for it. A Jagdpanther could rotate 90 degrees on its tracks and regain its stability (not rocking on its suspension) faster than a Panther could rotate its turret 90 degrees

I would like to see new counters for these kind of "errata". Having new and old AFV counters would guarantee that earlier scenarios would not tipp off balanced and new designs could use the "appropriate" tanks. For me this would not be a problem since there are already so many different version's af AFVs, PzIV for example.

 

[NoPrisoners]

Not so much any one rule, but the paradigm under which AFVs move. Realizing that there are limits as to what a turn-based game can simulate and remain playable, I still get annoyed when I can't 'shoot and scoot' my Shermans.
I'd like to have an option where I can shoot, then declare as simultaneous a check for either/both sP/sM and (Reverse)Motion, to include a change of VCA as desired, adding 1 or 2 to the TH roll.
I'd also like a pony.

NP

 

[Legionkid]

I would agree with complaints about the old sleeze bump. Moving units keep their concealment?!

I also have a dis with a k/wounded leader not having to take a moral check. A wounded leader has ZERO chance of breaking?! Take a 6+1 leader and run it behind to induce failure to route; if the enemy gets lucky and rolls a k/, YOU are the one in luck!

 

[mharviala]

I still get annoyed when I can't 'shoot and scoot' my Shermans.
I'd like to have an option where I can shoot, then declare as simultaneous a check for either/both sP/sM and (Reverse)Motion, to include a change of VCA as desired, adding 1 or 2 to the TH roll.

Mmm.... Bounding Fire, with a Gyrostabilized Sherman? expend MP, stop, fire, start (in reverse) fire your sM on this MP, and continue moving. The Gyro will about guarantee that you will win the gun duel (unless you're coming down the Panther's throat, in which case you deserve to become a flaming wreck.) Sounds like what you want to do is already very possible in the constraints of the game system, unless I'm missing the Zen of the post.

Mika
"What is the sound of one die rolling boxcars?"

 

[Gunner Scott]

Hi-

The most annoying rule to is the Human wave rule, the morons that modified the old rule should be shot for making it unplayable.


Scott

 

[Pitman]

Why do you think it is unplayable?

 

[Ole Boe]

Hi-

The most annoying rule to is the Human wave rule, the morons that modified the old rule should be shot for making it unplayable.

Hi Scott, thanks for the kind words - but I'm glad I'm living far from you

Have you played a few Banzais with them? I know there is a lot of text, but IMHO, they work pretty nice and are easy to remember. What is unplayable about them?

What I thought was unplayable, was the old rules where one always was unsure exactly which hexes the HW units could enter.

 

[Treadhead]

It took me a while to think of a rule that genuinely annoys me, and I've found one.

D5.33: "An AFV's crew and Passengers always become CE or BU together..."

I've never liked that restriction, I thought it could be changed and still be very playable. Years ago I wrote to Mac about my thoughts, and he wrote a nice reply. But the rule wasn't changed...

Our house rule was something like this:

a. If both Passengers and crew are CE, no counter required.
b. If Passengers are BU and crew are CE, then place CE counter on top of Passengers.
c. If crew are BU and Passengers are CE, then place Passengers on top of BU counter.
d. If both Passengers and crew are BU, place BU counter on top of Passengers.

It's been a while since I've played it with the House Rule, and I don't usually mention it to a new opponent.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Gunner Scott]

human wave

Hi ya-

To much of a counter cluster problem, the rules are not intuitive but more along the lines that you feel like your doing a para drop or beach assault.

The old was very simple, just move towards the closest enemy unit and that at that, no fumbling with markers of all kinds and what not. I wonder how many people actually use the new human wave rules, I know most people I have played, we have always stuck with the 1E rule.

Anyway, a very annoying rule if used.


Scott

 

[Treadhead]

Not so much any one rule, but the paradigm under which AFVs move. Realizing that there are limits as to what a turn-based game can simulate and remain playable, I still get annoyed when I can't 'shoot and scoot' my Shermans.
I'd like to have an option where I can shoot, then declare as simultaneous a check for either/both sP/sM and (Reverse)Motion, to include a change of VCA as desired, adding 1 or 2 to the TH roll.

NP

In effect, you are actually doing what you describe when you use Bounding First Fire.

Bounding First Fire is not a trigger for Defensive First Fire. In your examples above, if you are in a position to Bounding First Fire, you may:

1. Fire your MA (Bounding First Fire)
2. Expend a MP (sM, Reverse Start, VCA change, etc)

Note that you can even start the AFV's MPh this way. You risk a Gun Duel, but chances are you will win that, especially if equipped with a gyrostabilized Gun.

---

To expand the topic just a bit, IMO the ASL armor system is the most playable and elegant armor system out there. In my youth I tried a lot of miniature rules, but nothing even comes close to ASL's representation. I believe it is outstanding exactly because it is so playable, and reduces complex combinations into an efficient system.

[I also believe the ASL vehicle counters -- though the vehicle depiction itself may be bland -- are a master work of visual communications. By far the finest component of this game system.]

Ahem. I'm through now... sorry.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken, Treadhead of Old

 

[Brian W]

Our house rule was something like this:

You are applying G14.31 to all APC, something I called for years ago. I also think that cloaking of BU passangers should be the norm and not a variant.

 

[Treadhead]

Our house rule was something like this:

You are applying G14.31 to all APC, something I called for years ago. I also think that cloaking of BU passangers should be the norm and not a variant.

The effect of G14.31 is very similar, just using the CE/BU counter differently than I would. But G14.31 is not the same as the House Rule that we used.

Under G14.31, the Passengers may not be CE if the crew is BU. In fact, the only difference between G14.31 and D5.33, is that the Passengers have an option to be BU or CE only if the crew are CE .

If the crew are BU, the Passengers are also required to be BU, a situation I find to be unreasonable from a rules standpoint, and really no different in that regard than D5.33, which I hoped to replace.

Our House Rule was similar to -- and better, IMO, but not the same as -- G14.31.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Treadhead]

I also have a dis with a k/wounded leader not having to take a moral check. A wounded leader has ZERO chance of breaking?! Take a 6+1 leader and run it behind to induce failure to route; if the enemy gets lucky and rolls a k/, YOU are the one in luck!

... well, unless the Wound becomes a KIA ...

I'm not sure what you mean by "ZERO chance of breaking"...

Are you referring to the original K/# result that causes the Wound? I.e. are you suggesting that for a K/# result, the Leader should take a Wound Severity check, plus take the #MC?

That's been rehashed before...

Otherwise, a Wounded Leader still takes MC, etc. normally when called for. The fact that he is Wounded does not exempt a Leader from taking MC.

Perhaps you are thinking about a Wounded Hero ?...

Regards,
Bruce Bakken