Optimism for 2008 ASL

[MrP]

The best reason for anyone to have optimism for this upcoming year...

indeedy

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

the designer is readily available on CSW or elsewhere to provide rules decisions or clarifications

...Don Greenwood is now employed at GMT. I'm sure he's available for any questions you might have...

 

[Pitman]

Perhaps if the MMP people see it coming from enough people rather than just basking in the glow of all the sycophants here, they might actually change their routines.

MMP's official ASL rules support sucks. Absolutely sucks. In every other wargame I play, the designer is readily available on CSW or elsewhere to provide rules decisions or clarifications when the usual group of veterans is unable to do so. Guys like Dean Essig, Adam Starkweather, and Lee Brimmicombe-Wood particulary stand out. But ASL continues on living in the dark ages, pretending that it's still the era of sending a SASE along with your yes/no question to a postal address. Fortunately, there are two huge mitigating factors here - 1) the ASLRB is an incredibly well-designed ruleset to begin with, so that true ambiguities tend to exist only for very obscure situations with limited impact, and 2) the ASL community is so large, dedicated, and knowledgeable that an official response is rarely needed. Overall, the ASL rules are eminently playable and satisfying, but it's in spite of MMP's support of them, not because of it.

First, that is not true. Second, even if it were, it doesn't matter, because Portal has brought up the two particular incidents that bugged him over a hundred different times. So even if he had a point, it doesn't matter, because he made the point and the subsequent 99 times he repeated it just wasted the impact of the first time and made people hostile to whatever point he was trying to make in the first place.

 

[Pitman]

Keith, yes, I am planning to attend Winter Offensive. I will have to take my travel-ready sponge bath o' counters with me.

 

[byouse]

In every other wargame I play, the designer is readily available on CSW or elsewhere to provide rules decisions or clarifications when the usual group of veterans is unable to do so. Guys like Dean Essig, Adam Starkweather, and Lee Brimmicombe-Wood particulary stand out.

Oddly enough, all guys who draw a full-time salary to design games.

But ASL continues on living in the dark ages, pretending that it's still the era of sending a SASE along with your yes/no question to a postal address.

I don't believe the online form requests a question to be phrased in a yes/no format, but I could be wrong. And it doesn't cost $.41 to get a "yes" answer.

Fortunately, there are two huge mitigating factors here - 1) the ASLRB is an incredibly well-designed ruleset to begin with, so that true ambiguities tend to exist only for very obscure situations with limited impact, and 2) the ASL community is so large, dedicated, and knowledgeable that an official response is rarely needed. Overall, the ASL rules are eminently playable and satisfying, but it's in spite of MMP's support of them, not because of it.

Outside the obvious issues, like its infintely easier to support a game with 12 pages of rules versus a game like ASL so firing off answers to questions is a fairly simple exercise for a game like that, we recognize that the grognards of this hobby are quick to assist on rules issues so we let 99% of all rules questions be dealt with in that fashion - and why not? They're usually correct and if they're not someone else'll correct them and you have a nice rules discussion, guys like Bruce Probst and Ole Boe are (IIRC) actually receiving the questions our online form creates and they discuss with Perry, and, finally, we just can't be online all the time so letting grognards deal with it works out just fine.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

First, that is not true. Second, even if it were, it doesn't matter, because Portal has brought up the two particular incidents that bugged him over a hundred different times. So even if he had a point, it doesn't matter, because he made the point and the subsequent 99 times he repeated it just wasted the impact of the first time and made people hostile to whatever point he was trying to make in the first place.

And your whining about it 99 times make others just as hostile towards you for "wasting everybody's time". And my whining about your whining about Portal's complaining is a similar waste of time.

FWIW, though, I think you're wrong in your blanket statements of Portal's comments and their effect. Todd has some valid points, and I see others beginning to speak out also.

 

[byouse]

and I see others beginning to speak out also.

Speak out about what? Our not doing ASL rules by committee? Or am I missing the point?

Look at any thread in this forum, we're not about to be mired in flamewar after flamewar answering questions in a forum. That is a huge timesink and we already have time management issues without that hassle.

If you have a question, use the form on our website or email me and i'll get it to Perry. Its kind of buried, i'll fix that later tonight if I have a chance, but the URL is http://www.multimanpublishing.com/qa.php#submit

If it takes too long for Perry to answer you about your specific rules question, let me know and i'll ask him what's up.

Don't bother asking "why did you do it this way" questions, I doubt they'll be answered. We did it that way because we thought it was right. We don't change things because we have a sudden urge. If a flamewar springs up over our "thinking it was right" we're sure to hear about it and consider our position against reasonable posts therein.

 

[tppytel]

Oddly enough, all guys who draw a full-time salary to design games.

Ah yes... the "perpetual amateurs" argument. ASL has, almost certainly, one of the largest numbers of regular players of any "serious" board wargame. And it costs anywhere from 2 to 20 times the price of any other wargame, depending on the math you prefer. And yet it can't be supported as professionally as almost any other game out there. I'm unmoved.

I don't believe the online form requests a question to be phrased in a yes/no format, but I could be wrong. And it doesn't cost $.41 to get a "yes" answer.

You're missing the point. The advent of the Internet has made gamers expect a modicum of two-way communication with a game's creators. That's no doubt inconvenient to you, but it's a fact. That doesn't mean, as you suggest, that "rules are designed by committee". I'm fine with a close circle of gurus being the ultimate ASL rules authority - I've seen games go the opposite way and become a trainwreck. Two-way communication certainly doesn't mean that Perry or whoever is expected to be "on call" on the forums 24/7 - as both of us said, the forum regulars can handle the large majority of questions very well. Two-way communication does mean that major rules changes (like the Bridge TEM and perhaps the Final Fire/IF business and similar things) should merit some amount of discussion before they're set in stone, and that any issues with such changes receive some official participation in resulting discussions. I spend quite a bit of time on BGG helping out new players with rules questions, playing VASSAL games to get them going, and encouraging them to buy into your (very expensive) game system. Other people design and playtest scenarios, create various player aids, maintain websites like ROAR, run tournaments, etc. Now that people can easily communicate without spending $0.41 and waiting a week for letters to go back and forth, lending those people an ear online and responding to their questions and concerns is not too much to ask.

Outside the obvious issues, like its infintely easier to support a game with 12 pages of rules... and, finally, we just can't be online all the time so letting grognards deal with it works out just fine.

All of this paragraph I absolutely agree with for 99.9% of the rules issues I've seen come up. Like I said in my first post, it's very rare that there's any rules question with significant impact that isn't clearly answered by the rules, perhaps with some grog guru assistance. But that 0.1% that's left over, like the Bridge TEM, deserves more involvement and communication from MMP than it's gotten.

Don't bother asking "why did you do it this way" questions, I doubt they'll be answered. We did it that way because we thought it was right.

I expect a more accomodating attitude than this from people I give my money to. I've dropped other games precisely because of those kinds of statements from designers. Certainly I wouldn't go around actively promoting them in the way I do for ASL. Fortunately for MMP, ASL is so damn good that people let you off the hook.

If a flamewar springs up over our "thinking it was right" we're sure to hear about it and consider our position against reasonable posts therein.

So where is the official statement about the Bridge TEM, then? I don't necessarily expect a reversal (though I personally don't agree with the current ruling), but I would expect that someone official could write a carefully considered summary of the various points brought up by the community along with a final decision and justification. FWIW, I believe Portal has said that he would be satisfied by such a statement as well.

ASL is an unbelievably good game, with a tremendously large, supportive, and knowledgeable community. But it could be an even better game with an even larger and more enthusiastic community if MMP stepped up and supported it to a greater degree. Rules changes are one aspect of that, along with the publication issues so frequently discussed here.


Kevin (and others) - I apologize for thread-jacking. In the spirit of optimism, I've tried to keep my comments as polite, non-personal, and rational as possible. I won't respond further to this aspect of the thread. Also in the spirit of optimism, I'm very much looking forward to getting my copy of J2 and completing my official magazine collection. I think the decision to put that up on P# was a perfect example of MMP being responsive to its customers. (And, for any naysayers that point out that my applauding a J2 reprint is self-serving I'll only say that the cost of buying a copy on eBay positively pales in comparison to what I've already spent on ASL - MMP saving me $200 is not an earth-shaking development.)

 

[Gunner Scott]

Hi-

As noted in my Back in Black Thread, the SS pack is progressing fairly well, maybe tonight I'll post a couple of vehicle notes for the unwashed masses to peruse. I am hoping to get this pack out the door for the ASL open but the biggest glich is that I can only get to the printers once or twice a week and sit down to work with him on getting the counters dress right dress which takes two to three hours per a visit.

My next project will be a combination of Italian rare vehicles like the AB43, T-34's and so on used by the Italian RSI and a few regular scenarios a few of my buddies are working on. But this project will more then likely see the light of day in mid 2009.

Ya I'm slow but I want this pack to be awesome.


Scott

 

[Joel4nier]

I thought I was going to optimism and this is what I get. :freak::blab:

 

[IYAOYAS]

...We're all still waiting on an Official answer for the bridge erratum (sure, we can all guess from what Ole was sharing with us, but it wasn't a Final Answer )...

Not all are waiting for an answer. I know I'm not. Some is probably correct.

Gotta go now, have a hot date. She's ewesome.

 

[IYAOYAS]

2008 is going to be a tournament year for me. Will hit as many as I can afford. Even planning for my first ASLOK this year. It's gonna be a great year.

 

[tppytel]

2008 is going to be a tournament year for me. Will hit as many as I can afford. Even planning for my first ASLOK this year. It's gonna be a great year.

Ooh, yeah... there are tournaments too. I'll be going to my first this year with the ASL Open - definitely looking forward to that. I'm sure I'll get my butt kicked backwards and forwards, but I'll have fun doing it.

 

[Earthpig]

Ooh, yeah... there are tournaments too. I'll be going to my first this year with the ASL Open - definitely looking forward to that. I'm sure I'll get my butt kicked backwards and forwards, but I'll have fun doing it.

Me too! I'm definitly looking forward to get my hip pockets handed to me then also!

 

[Psycho]

Happy New Year, Brian. I look forward to MMP delivering on its expectations in 2008.

Now is there any chance MMP can up its level of professionalism to comparable levels of peer wargaming companies, and give a straight design logic answer to players asking why particular rules errata are released and what problems were intended to be fixed, from an Official perspective? We're all still waiting on an Official answer for the bridge erratum (sure, we can all guess from what Ole was sharing with us, but it wasn't a Final Answer ).

Start delivering in 2008, become more responsive to reasonable Qs, and this naysayer will well shut-up.

That's it? I thought for sure we'd see something really nasty at the stroke of midnight. This isn't much worse than the things you've said for the past two months.

 

[Pitman]

It was premature evisceration.

 

[BobO]

It was premature evisceration.

That sounds like a sticky situation.

 

[ChrisBuehler]

That sounds like a sticky situation.

TMI!!!!

Chris

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

Ah yes... the "perpetual amateurs" argument. ASL has, almost certainly, one of the largest numbers of regular players of any "serious" board wargame. And it costs anywhere from 2 to 20 times the price of any other wargame, depending on the math you prefer. And yet it can't be supported as professionally as almost any other game out there. I'm unmoved.


You're missing the point. The advent of the Internet has made gamers expect a modicum of two-way communication with a game's creators. That's no doubt inconvenient to you, but it's a fact. That doesn't mean, as you suggest, that "rules are designed by committee". I'm fine with a close circle of gurus being the ultimate ASL rules authority - I've seen games go the opposite way and become a trainwreck. Two-way communication certainly doesn't mean that Perry or whoever is expected to be "on call" on the forums 24/7 - as both of us said, the forum regulars can handle the large majority of questions very well. Two-way communication does mean that major rules changes (like the Bridge TEM and perhaps the Final Fire/IF business and similar things) should merit some amount of discussion before they're set in stone, and that any issues with such changes receive some official participation in resulting discussions. I spend quite a bit of time on BGG helping out new players with rules questions, playing VASSAL games to get them going, and encouraging them to buy into your (very expensive) game system. Other people design and playtest scenarios, create various player aids, maintain websites like ROAR, run tournaments, etc. Now that people can easily communicate without spending $0.41 and waiting a week for letters to go back and forth, lending those people an ear online and responding to their questions and concerns is not too much to ask.


All of this paragraph I absolutely agree with for 99.9% of the rules issues I've seen come up. Like I said in my first post, it's very rare that there's any rules question with significant impact that isn't clearly answered by the rules, perhaps with some grog guru assistance. But that 0.1% that's left over, like the Bridge TEM, deserves more involvement and communication from MMP than it's gotten.


I expect a more accomodating attitude than this from people I give my money to. I've dropped other games precisely because of those kinds of statements from designers. Certainly I wouldn't go around actively promoting them in the way I do for ASL. Fortunately for MMP, ASL is so damn good that people let you off the hook.


So where is the official statement about the Bridge TEM, then? I don't necessarily expect a reversal (though I personally don't agree with the current ruling), but I would expect that someone official could write a carefully considered summary of the various points brought up by the community along with a final decision and justification. FWIW, I believe Portal has said that he would be satisfied by such a statement as well.

ASL is an unbelievably good game, with a tremendously large, supportive, and knowledgeable community. But it could be an even better game with an even larger and more enthusiastic community if MMP stepped up and supported it to a greater degree. Rules changes are one aspect of that, along with the publication issues so frequently discussed here.


Kevin (and others) - I apologize for thread-jacking. In the spirit of optimism, I've tried to keep my comments as polite, non-personal, and rational as possible. I won't respond further to this aspect of the thread. Also in the spirit of optimism, I'm very much looking forward to getting my copy of J2 and completing my official magazine collection. I think the decision to put that up on P# was a perfect example of MMP being responsive to its customers. (And, for any naysayers that point out that my applauding a J2 reprint is self-serving I'll only say that the cost of buying a copy on eBay positively pales in comparison to what I've already spent on ASL - MMP saving me $200 is not an earth-shaking development.)

Brian,
No need for an apology....

More definitive threads have been hijacked for lesser reasons.

I'm optomistic about 2008 on the ASL items MMP will have on the store shelves....:clown:

 

[Portal]

Many cheers to Todd for his participation in this thread, and for his concurment to many of my points I've been trying to communicate to both MMP and this forum for the last year and a half. It's nice to see some others are "looking outside the box" when it comes to MMP's relationship with ASL customers w.r.t. rules changes / errata / decision-making.

Brian,

Don't bother asking "why did you do it this way" questions, I doubt they'll be answered. We did it that way because we thought it was right. We don't change things because we have a sudden urge.

Does Perry & ASL Rules Co. really make arbitrary rules errata decisions based upon gut instinct, as you suggest? Surely, there must be some kind of tangible, logical analysis conducted. Yes?

BTW - I can list at least three wargaming companies without full-time salaried game support staff who do answer these design logic Qs in a direct, responsive, and public manner (Australian Design Group, Clash of Arms, GMT all quickly come to mind). Why? Because they believe they're essential to customer service. I agree with them.