Most annoying rule . . .

[paul]

Ok,

I know everyone has a rule that bother's them. Mine is the surrender result on a HOB. Da** it, if I bother to roll a snake, don't deflate my
excitement and good roll by handing me a surrender result!
Did it again just this weekend 2 backed by 12.

What is yours . . .

-Paul

 

[jimfer]

Rule peeve

Hey Gents,

I think it should be mandatory that all main malfunctioned armament must attempt repairs! The idea that a crew would not try to fix its weopons is ridiculous.

My nickle,
Jim

 

[SamB]

I think it should be mandatory that all main malfunctioned armament must attempt repairs! The idea that a crew would not try to fix its weopons is ridiculous.

I "lean" this way too. But its a game, so I often don't attempt repair and just play.

My most annoying rule is the Cave facing... Waaaay back at the beginning I suggested that the facing for ALL units be 12 point instead of 6 point. The said it would be too complex. The "too complex" argument for ASL is a little weak IMO. And now, of course there is an optional rule published in the Journal for 12 point facing.

But then they come out with CAVES and give them a hex-SIDE facing. Why? In what possible way does this make caves in ASL more "realistic" or better in the game? It has always just seemed like useless crome to me. Caves in ASL would be much simpler if they used the same CA as all other ordnance, units, Pillboxes, etc.

Just one thing that bugged me. Not so much anymore...

Sam

 

[Pitman]

Of course that optional rule sucked.

 

[Houlie]

Most annoying rule...

...has got to be cowering on snake eyes. I have been playing a house rule lately that says NO cowering on snakes (where my opponent agrees before the game starts). Geez, if ya roll snakes, ya deserve snakes! And it don't hap'n often!!!

 

[Hubbs5]

My most annoying Rule has finally been changed. I just couldn't understand how a moving unit could bump into a stationary enemy unit and the moving unit could strip concealment off the stationary unit without losing its own concealment. Glad somebody came to their senses on that one.

 

[bo_siemsen]

My most disliked rule is the Special Ammo "extra shot" when using APCR, APDS etc.

This can especially be useful in the movement phase or advance fire phase. First you roll for the APCR shot - if you dont get it ... then you get another roll with normal ammo. For instance, if you need a 6 to hit in the movement phase and APCR or 6 ... your chance to hit is increased from 41,7% to 64,8%. That's quite a bit.

 

[Robin Reeve]

On the other side, Depletion rules create another problem.
If a tank commander knows he has no more APCR, and that only that ammo can destroy an enemy, he will get out of harm's way.
In ASL, he goes looking in his storage location at the moment of firing.
And as depeletion numbers are usually quite low, he has much chances to be naked in front of his feind.
Why not establish a house rule, asking for pregrame depletion rolls for every special ammo?
And when firing it (if not depleted), the DR defines the availability of the ammo at next shot...

I don't like house rules, but that one would make some sense, not touching play balance... :?:

 

[Barber]

The most annoying rule?

That easy. The one that bit you most recently.

For me it was last night and the rule that says you can't cross a barbed wire fence hexside if you're CX. I mean come on. You can cross wall, hedge and bocage hexsides while you're CX. You can slide down the slopes of a gully and climb a hill while you're CX. You can dig foxholes, search for mines, or mop up a multi-hex, multi-story building while you're CX. You can do durn near everything in the rulebook when you're CX but hop over a barbed wire fence.

Sheesh, whoever wrote that rule hasn't gone over many fences.

Jeff "let me wander over yonder" Barber

 

[Brian W]

Sheesh, whoever wrote that rule hasn't gone over many fences.

All the ex-army types I play with say you cut 'em. The wire fence rules are a deal breaker for me with respect to KGP. I actually like slopes, but the fences feel unrealistic and are too inhibiting to movement.

Most will think it heresy, but worst rule commonly used for me is no LOS checks before firing. Not sure what it is supposed to represent except a limit on C&C. I think there are simpler, more realistic ways of doing the same thing. Sad part is that ASL vets know so many LOSs after years of playing that it gives an advantage to experienced players instead of actually simulating anything.

 

[Countertroll]

rule that bugs me

new account on the forum, so a late starter to this thread. The rule that bugs me the most? At night, Illuminated units can not shoot Adjacent units that are not illuminated. C'mon, it is called probing fire and EVERY army in the world that does any actions at night knows what it is, and how to do it. (aim the pointy end of your weapon away from your body and pull the trigger until it makes a loud noise). I know it is a realism argument, but the question was what bugs you...

Kenn

 

[Washing Machine Charlie]

Step Reduction

I know the ELR rule kinda reflects this, but I always dislike
doing the math of the MC DR with the unit's ELR and trying
figure out the next approximate lower quality unit to replace it with.

I think all nationalites counters should have a
step-reduction system similiar to the Japanese.
Sure, it would take away the unique flavour of that
nationality in the ASL universe, but accounts I've read
of talk of all combat units being quickly reduced in numbers
from thier original unit strength in much a similar way,
except that that most nationalites will break sooner than
the Japanese under such losses. It seems in ASL a lot of
units can break and rally over and over again without really
losing unit integrity and strength. I never seem to get enough
snakes eyes to really KIA or K a unit. It appears in ASL that
it takes a lot of firepower to really reduce a unit effectiveness
with casulties.

I thought that maybe a new IFT chart (Boy, I know I'm opening
a can of worms saying that, so please go easy on me!) to
put in more K results--That way the new step-reduction counters
for other nationalies wouldn't be required. But then a K results
is a bit too much of a casualty reduction to reflect unit attrition
compared to a step-reduction. I'm sure there are a lot of good
reasons that I'm not aware of for the current sytem, both real
and practical in game terms. In any case, it's way too late, of
course, to redo the rule system and counters for step-reduction
for the ASL game system. It which would be too expensive and impractical.
But boy, when I play the Japanese, I really feel thier pain
as thier units keep getting degraded with casualties!

 

[Bryan Holtby]

The ELR rule is what sets ASL aside from other wargames. It allows the designers to put in additional nationality traits and gives them a way to show the brittleness of units in certain circumstances.

ELR replacement represents mild losses in battle, lowered morale simulates loss of inherent squad leaders, more experienced soldiers or even just the survivor's buddies, lowered range and firepower numbers depict a combination of things, fewer and maybe a bit more cautious soldiers.

There is no "next approximate" lower quality unit, there is only one, and its really not that hard to figure out once you get used to it.

The step loss of the Japanese was put in to simulate the fact that only the Japanese soldier would advance en masse despite horrendous casualties (I guess you could include early war Human Waves by the Russians). Western nations would usually fall back and regroup, which is your rout and rally. Typically, most western units didnt suffer large numbers of dead in a battle due to the fact that they routed and rallied. Only when cut off would they be elminated in large numbers.

Most ppl dont use the IFT for killing, we use the Failure to Rout method, its much more efficient. Using FtR allows you to capture ground AND eliminate units. ASL is foremost a game of maneuver, prep firing many of your units when on the attack will most often cause you to loose the scenario.

 

[JoeCleere]

most annoying rule

The most annoying rules to me concern rallying. Desperation morale is a pain. Another is that squads and half-squads cannot self-rally. I have experimented with the rules concerning rallying by having units under DM but stacked with a leader at the beginning of the rally phase have the +4 DM modifier nullified. I also allowed squads and half squads to self rally.
The results seem more accurate historically to me. The presence of leaders up front is rewarded immensely, except when they break and then things can go down hill quick. Self rally is useful, especially when one side is very short on leaders. Yes, I have read accounts where troops break, run for cover, and then rally themselves and start firing on the enemy without the intervention of an officer or NCO other than their squad leader and assistant squad leader.

 

[Chas Argent]

I have experimented with the rules concerning rallying by having units under DM but stacked with a leader at the beginning of the rally phase have the +4 DM modifier nullified.

This is called a Commissar. You apply this to all nationalities?

The results seem more accurate historically to me.

Except that the game you play has nothing to do with ASL, if you're so radically modifying rules.

 

[JoeCleere]

I have experimented with the rules concerning rallying by having units under DM but stacked with a leader at the beginning of the rally phase have the +4 DM modifier nullified.

This is called a Commissar. You apply this to all nationalities?

Well...? If a mmc fails to rally under a Commisar doesn't it suffer casuality reduction? An mmc under a Commissar also has its morale raised by one. So there are some differences. And yes, I would apply the leadership rules modifications to all nationalities.

The results seem more accurate historically to me.

Except that the game you play has nothing to do with ASL, if you're so radically modifying rules.

As long as I am not forcing an opponent to play by these modifications to the rules I don't think there is any harm. Like I said, these are just experiments.

 

[da priest]

>The results seem more accurate historically to me.

Nice to see a WW2 vet with us, what battles were you in that gave you this data?

 

[Jazz]

>The results seem more accurate historically to me.

Nice to see a WW2 vet with us, what battles were you in that gave you this data?

I was wondering the same thing. Of course, ASL is full of folks that seem to think they know what went on in small unit engagements on a 3 minute time scale in combat that took place 60 years ago.

Or are we taking Private Ryan and Band of Brothers as research material?

I smell another particularly ugly reality debate in the air...

Jazz

 

[Bryan Holtby]

Yes, I have read accounts where troops break, run for cover, and then rally themselves and start firing on the enemy without the intervention of an officer or NCO other than their squad leader and assistant squad leader.

DM status represents a number of things going on, wether it be panic, applying first aid to the wounded or trying to figure out either a way out or another way to get back in. DM status also takes control of the unit away from the player to a certain extent.

Its a bloody ABSTRACTION. ASL is an ABSTRACTION of ww2 combat, not an exact simulation.

Joe, you are forever trying to change the game you play because you dont like the way certain rules work......why not just change to a different game?

 

[Ole Boe]

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.

I will not play with his house rules, but if he enjoys ASL more with those rules, then that's perfectly fine with me.

I do agree with Bryan that DM status represents a lot of things, and that a unit which has just been shot at is less likely to recover, so DM is (obviously to most) a sensible rule.

And for Joe's argument about stories of units that self-rallied: That's what we have the one self-rally per firendly Rally Phase rule for.

But i still agree with Joe's last statement:

As long as I am not forcing an opponent to play by these modifications to the rules I don't think there is any harm. Like I said, these are just experiments.

[/quote]