Repair SSR

[dynaman]

Add me in to the "Don't add the SSR just cause it sounds better" camp.

 

[trevpr1]

Hi all-

Some great suggestions and idea's. Why am I doing an SSR like this? To add a little fog of war to the cardboard battle field. Now with this SSR inplace, approaching a Gun or AFV with a Melf counter can not be as safe as it used to be

IE

"Look jack, that Panther's MA has a melf counter on it, now we can just ride up and blow the stupid tank away"

Obviously, I will need to reword the SSR to tighten the language up a bit, Like yes, the AFV or Gun in question does not have to have a LOS to an enemy unit to repair its MA/ Gun. This SSR does not apply to SW.

Scott

I can see why you'd want to do this. I've won games on occasion when all the enemy armour drove towards a positionwhere the big cat's (I was the Germans each time) gun had the big red counter. Next turn, with the juicyy targets right in sight, I rolled that 1 and proceeded to destroy all the crucial targets. Panthers in the Mist and Cold Crocodiles as I recall.

However, I still think you're screwing with the game becasue you don't like a particular mechanic... of the game. Its in the same category as the crews manning SW. Better to put it in as a suggestion in the blurb for the pack that allowing the repair roll in a fire phase was the thing to do.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

"Look jack, that Panther's MA has a melf counter on it, now we can just ride up and blow the stupid tank away"

keeping malf counters off the board might accomplish the same thing, though some may have an issue (?) with the memory thing.

 

[rdw5150]

"However, I still think you're screwing with the game becasue you don't like a particular mechanic... of the game. Its in the same category as the crews manning SW. Better to put it in as a suggestion in the blurb for the pack that allowing the repair roll in a fire phase was the thing to do."

Agreed! I do not like the Crew Serviced Weapons rules (or whatever they are called) either...... I think that the system is what it is and should be used as such. We all have certain game mechanics that urk us, if all the designers did this I know I would have trouble keeping it all straight. Hell, I alreay do!:clown:

Peace

Roger

 

[rdw5150]

keeping malf counters off the board might accomplish the same thing, though some may have an issue (?) with the memory thing.

huh?!?!?

What we were talking about:nuts:

Peace

Roger

 

[trevpr1]

He means that you'll roll secretly your repair. Ok if you know the guy, but it'd be tough to trust soeone you don't know at a tourney.

 

[rdw5150]

He means that you'll roll secretly your repair. Ok if you know the guy, but it'd be tough to trust soeone you don't know at a tourney.

I know I was making (apparently a bad) joke about memory:clown:

Peace

Roger

 

[Blackcloud6]

No that is not the reason I am doing this type of SSR. It is because I want this pack of scenarios to be unique. I think the current set of Repair rules in the ASLRB are ok, could use a little more work, like having MA's repair on a 1to 3 stead of a 1. That sort of stuff.

That may not be your intent but it is the result. You state above you are trying to do so to add some "fog of war" or make the scenario unique. Neither of these reasons have anything to do with a historical situation specific to the scenario so it is a change to the game system. So this is not a good thing. The HoB reference above is a good comparison and warning.


The malfunction and repair rules are fine as they are and are in no need of change, either by a rules change or non-historical SSR.

 

[Tork]

It is your scenario, you can do whatever you want with it.

There are risks inherent in this sort of thing though. Changes in mechanics will probably cause some people to not play it. On the other hand, it might cause your scenarios to stand out of the crowd and get extra attention.

So if you are going to add this repair rule, make absolutely sure the rule is tight, well-written, and above all, short!

 

[James Taylor]

What Tork said.

You can put wings on Panthers if you want... just make sure you iron out all the side-effects. (Now you might not find players playing your scenario....)

For real FoW go with a double blind system on TH attempts and effects with a referee.

So you don't see your opponents TH rolls and he does not see the TK effects... unless you start smoking or he is close enough to see something... like men getting out of the tank.

You never know when he breaks his weapon.

I always thought that armor leaders should be able to apply their mods to fixing a weapon. A few scenarios allow this, and they are cool.

JT

 

[Gunner]

That may not be your intent but it is the result. You state above you are trying to do so to add some "fog of war" or make the scenario unique. Neither of these reasons have anything to do with a historical situation specific to the scenario so it is a change to the game system. So this is not a good thing. The HoB reference above is a good comparison and warning.


The malfunction and repair rules are fine as they are and are in no need of change, either by a rules change or non-historical SSR.

If someone had told Shelling that the sniper rules were fine and didn't need changing he might not have put SSR 5 in Urban Guerillas and everybody is all ga ga over that one. I think Scott is just trying to do something unique with his scenarios to stand out. No need for us to throw him under the bus. If the SSR doesn't work I'm sure the playtesters will let him know. Just mho.

Gunner

 

[Jazz]

If someone had told Shelling that the sniper rules were fine and didn't need changing he might not have put SSR 5 in Urban Guerillas and everybody is all ga ga over that one. I think Scott is just trying to do something unique with his scenarios to stand out. No need for us to throw him under the bus. If the SSR doesn't work I'm sure the playtesters will let him know. Just mho.

Gunner

Agreed, but I do think the rule as proposed by Scott don't quite feel "right". JMMHO. Maybe my mind will change when I see it in play, but I have my doubts. It wouldn't affect my decision to not try to repair an MA and take a chance at losing a VBM-mobile. <shrug>

I think a better SSR would be something along the lines of allowing an AL to modify the repair roll...possibly making it impossible to disable/recall an AFV with a -1 or -2 leader? It would depend on the details of how the SSR was written.

 

[alanp]

I agree with Tork and Gunner, although the UG partisan creation was added for historical reasons--at least in part.

Go for it, though, Scott. Yes, the playtesters and public will let you know if your attempt to make a scenario more fun has worked.

 

[Blackcloud6]

If someone had told Shelling that the sniper rules were fine and didn't need changing he might not have put SSR 5 in Urban Guerillas and everybody is all ga ga over that one. I think Scott is just trying to do something unique with his scenarios to stand out. No need for us to throw him under the bus.

His proposal is a misuse of the SSR. They should only be used to make specific historical events that happened in the situation work or possibly work in the scenario. This should be thrown under the bus. SSR never should change the rules just for the sake of chaninging the rules.

As a playtester, i would tell the designer that right up front.

I have no idea what Shelling did, but maybe he had a reason to do so to make the scenario work historically or force the player into a the historical situation.

 

[Gunner]

His proposal is a misuse of the SSR. They should only be used to make specific historical events that happened in the situation work or possibly work in the scenario. This should be thrown under the bus. SSR never should change the rules just for the sake of chaninging the rules.

As a playtester, i would tell the designer that right up front.

I have no idea what Shelling did, but maybe he had a reason to do so to make the scenario work historically or force the player into a the historical situation.

I'm not trying to be dense here but I don't see how you can misuse an SSR. I thought SSR's were for designers to use to portray something that was variable or not entirely covered by the rules. I didn't think an SSR had to be something to make a scenario more historical. Not everybody wants to play a scenario because it is strictly historical. I want a scenario that is fun and unique, loosely guided by history. My .02 worth.

Gunner

 

[Fred Ingram]

I'm not trying to be dense here but I don't see how you can misuse an SSR. I thought SSR's were for designers to use to portray something that was variable or not entirely covered by the rules. I didn't think an SSR had to be something to make a scenario more historical. Not everybody wants to play a scenario because it is strictly historical. I want a scenario that is fun and unique, loosely guided by history. My .02 worth.

Gunner

The proposed SSR accomplishes that very well. Remember, this is YOUR design. If others want to criticise, maybe they should try designing some scenarios first and see how they are received.

 

[Blackcloud6]

I'm not trying to be dense

Then don't be.

Kidding aside:

I don't see how you can misuse an SSR.

Cetainly one can. In my view it is a gross misuse of SSRs if one specifically puts one it because the does not like a certain aspect of ASL. This hints at an undisciplined designer. It is really an vield attempt too make one's "house rule" official. HoB's rules that only crews can use MGs was one of these. Fortunatley, they made it palatable within the spirit of the RB by making it optional. I played with them once and then never used them again.

[I thought SSR's were for designers to use to portray something that was variable or not entirely covered by the rules. /QUOTE]

Unfortunatley, the RB does not define SSRs. It should in my view. But in a snese you are right in your definition. But sequence of play should never be considered "variable" and it certainly is covered by the rules. Scott's proposed rule is a change in the sequence of play. reapir are explicitly in the rules as to when they can be made. His SSR is no different than one that would say: "Defenders may also conduct Frist DFF in the advance phase."

I want a scenario that is fun and unique, loosely guided by history.

Well, I want one that is fun and unique and firmly rooted in history. I think the ASL community tendancy is to that as ahistorical scenarios are very well accepted.

The proposed SSR accomplishes that very well. Remember, this is YOUR design. If others want to criticise, maybe they should try designing some scenarios first and see how they are received.

Scott asked for opinions and comments on his rule proposal. Just because I don't like it is no reason not to comment.

I have designed scenarios for mnay games including ASL. I take very discplined apporached to scenario design, and the big part of that "Is do no harm to the RB."

Designers should shy away from gimmicks to make their scenarios appealing. Clever uses of the rules as written while keeping the SSRs within the construct of the game rules will do much towards making a good scenario. replicating the tactical delimma of both sides usually makes for the best of scenarios.

A way I judge a scenario when testing is this: "Are both sides feeling stressed, almost to point they feel they are lossing during most of the play?" If so, then you have a good one in the making, a nial biter. Thiose are always fun and go down to final CC DR.

This should be accomplished by good use of VC's, OB, trerrain and set up. Not through elaborate SSRs that burden the player with more rules. SSRs should be used sparingly, like glue on a well built model. And they should never change the mechanics of the game because the scenario desinger has a pet peeve. SSRs are a place to tinker with the game system, they are only to help mould particular events for a particulur situation/scenario.

Our playtest group conciously questions the necessity of every SSR we encounter and have asked many deisngers to reduce and eliminate some.

I do thin k that the integrity of the ASLRB is important and it is a major reason of its lasting success over a long period of time. We all should be guardians of that.

 

[Sparafucil3]

My personal opinion is this would add an interesting piece of chrome. Playtesting would tell you if it was playable. If it is, and the scenario ends up being a classic, everyone will call you a genius. Otherwise, it will end up not being played. Such is the risk you take. -- jim

 

[asler]

His proposal is a misuse of the SSR. They should only be used to make specific historical events that happened in the situation work or possibly work in the scenario.

Got to disagree with this part of your statement. I don't know that there is any qualification to what a SSR can or cannot include/do. If we take your rather strict usage of an SSR, then there can be no SSR's for Hill 621 since that is not based on an historical encounter

To go the other route - show me in the rule book where it defines what SSR's can and cannot cover. You'll find it doesn't. It just occasionally referances them - never codifies the usage of them.

All the Index shows is:

SSR (Scenario Special Rule): Always takes precedence over Game System rules

I think a scenario designer can use them in what ever manner they deem to have merit. From that point on it is up to the playtesters/public to either accept what the designer does or reject it...or simply play the apathy card.

CG

 

[Gunner Scott]

Fred-

Just want to let you know that I do appreciate your feedback and will take it into concideration as far as this SSR is concerned.


Scott