Repair SSR

[Blackcloud6]

think a scenario designer can use them in what ever manner they deem to have merit.

Sorry, but that is fluffy puffy nonsense. By your standard (or lack thereof) the designer could SSR anything he wants like: SSR1. Use the Card rules from Combat Commander for all movement.

Such an SSR would make that Scenario no longer be an ASL one.

Yes, the RB does not define the use of SSR's explicitly. But 30 years of scenario design and what one can infer from Chapter E sure can make an implicit standard of what SSRs are there for. And they are not there to just willy nilly change to rules to meet one's perception of the rules.

 

[Blackcloud6]

Here's a very good reason why this proposed SSR does not work. It puts control and timing of repairs back to the player. ASL does not give contol of bad things and when they happen, the player. By having repairs only on the RPh, the player has no control over when it is done, he only has control of whther he should do it or not. Theres' a risk and reward in this deciosn. if you have a tank with malf MA and it is possible that it may face a charge of Bad Guy tank, and thius needs it's gun, you have to make the hard choice in the RPh if you want to repait it or not.

Under Scott's proposal, the player gains more control because he can then time the repair to possibly hit right when he needs it. This goes against the whole spirit of ASL. heck, many of you out there complain the player has too much control already (I don't agree BTW). Why give him control over something in any form of reality he wouldn't have?

Real life as best as ASL can do it: Tank crew: "Sir, our tank cannon just went poop, over."

Co Cdr 'Well, dammit, you better fix it pretty fast because I see two Panthers over the next ridge heading towards us."

crew "crap" sweat sweat wrench wrench.... Click, "Whew... Just in the nick of time, now we can fire if n the defensive fire phase if those Panthers vloase on us. harry, pull down that big green square on the turret, that wil make those Gerries think twice."

or

Crew: wrench wrench sweat wrench, crap.... "we're screwed.... Harry. flip the square on the turret over and hope those Panthers don't close on us and get ready to skeedaddle back to Battalion!"


Under Scott's rule:

Tank crew: "Sir, our tank cannon just went poop, over."

Co Cdr: "Cool, put the big green square on your turret that has "MA Malf" wirtten on it and then start working on the gun, but don't fix it all the way. The green square will draw the enemy tanks to you. When those panthers get close to you, I'll call and tell you to fix it, pull the green square down and fire!"

Tank crew: "Gee sir, good one. Did they teach you that at West Point?"

 

[Blackcloud6]

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

Scott:

You are welcome and I think it was a very good idea for you to solicite opinions of your idea.

Fred

 

[Blackcloud6]

Now, here is a way Scott could do the same thing not with an SSR but with a scenario pack Optional Rule.

"Optional Rule 1: When a gun malfunctions, no counter is placed on the unit but the player keeps a written record of the status of the vehicle. All repair rolls are done by secret dr and results kept in secret by written record."

Now, if cheating is an issue, players could agree to use a dice bot that emails the result into an "escrow" mialbox for viewing after the game.

This does exactly what Optional Rules are intended for, more realism less playablility and by being an optional rule, both players must agree to use it and the scenario still can be played by normal rules.

This meets the intent and motiviation behind Scott's SSR while preserving the mechanics and play sequence of ASL.

This is very similar to SSRs that allow SWs to be HiP until use even though the squad is on the board.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

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

Yes...and ....no....

I think one must still respect The Game, when fiddling with SSRs, especially ones that could viewed as "Grudge SSRs". It still gives designers latitude for specific occurences.

 

[daveramsey]

I think it's a nice idea - it adds to the decision maker of an attacker approaching a seemingly knocked out position, especially if the roll is secret - but maybe the problem is that if it works really well it would somehow diminish scenarios that didn't have that layer of un-predicatability in it?

One of the rules I love in ASL is the bog check secret dr that your opponent makes in muddy situations. Duel at Rueller is a cracking scenario for that aspect alone.

SSRs to me should tailor the scenario to the historical, or hypothetical setting, to that of a scene the designer is trying to set. More spice rather than core ingredient.

If Scott's historical situation was noted for one side's ability to keep seemingly broken equipment working, it could be acheived in simpler ways with dr modifiers. Unfortunately for me it seems like a cool idea, that would have made the core rules better, but doesn't seem suitable to a specific, or set of, scenarios.

 

[Ole Boe]

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.

Not meaning to sound too negative, but for my taste, it is the wrong way of being unique. I'm not sure which scenarios I've played that you have designed -except for Eye of the Tiger, but I know that Eye of the Tiger stands out as one of my favourites, not due to some chrome SSR.

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.

But that is to tincer with the basic game mechanisms. You should not do that unless you want to portray some special situation in the SSR. I am the one that tincer with the basic rules, and you hate that - don't you remember.

 

[Ole Boe]

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.

That SSR is there to simulate a special historical occurence - that partisans joined the fray during the battle.

That's miles away from a SSR that is there because one is not happy with how the repair rules generally work in a game.

I think Scott is just trying to do something unique with his scenarios to stand out.

I agree, but I think Scott is a good enough scenario designer to accomplish that by other means.

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.

I don't think there's a work/not work issue, but rather a subjective issue of whether one likes playing variants or not.

Now, there are so many scenarios around that it may be more than a bit petty to complain about someone wanting a completely new SSR, but he did ask for opinions, and I've not seen anyone throwing him under the bus, but rather constructive attempts at explaining why such an SSR should be avoided.

 

[Vinnie]

A couple of points.
1. Are you going to remove any repair from the rallyphase or add an extra one?
2 If you wish to remove the rally repair (a fair move) Then is the repair attempt being made only when the SW could have been fired? Thus in prep, DF (or DFF) or in AFPh where the weapon did not move.
Either way is fair but not really neccessary to my mind unless the scenario is based around one weapon and then a "ignore the first 6,6 on that weapon" rule may be sufficient.

 

[Gunner]

That SSR is there to simulate a special historical occurence - that partisans joined the fray during the battle.

That's miles away from a SSR that is there because one is not happy with how the repair rules generally work in a game.

I don't think Scott has said that he is not happy with how the repair rule works. He has not said one way or the other if he is trying to simulate a special historical occurence has he? I'm too lazy to go back and read the whole thread again so if I'm wrong and he has said then I'm sorry.

Gunner

 

[Jazz]

Just my opinion....

Hey Scott,

Lottsa replies eh?

All the points of my position has been mentioned by others, albeit, not all of them by any one person.

- You, as the scenario designer can put in just about any SSR you want. It's your scenario.

- We, as the consuming public will decide to play them or not play them.

- I seriously doubt that anybody will play your scenarios just because you added an SSR as you mentioned.

- There are probably quite a few folks that will not play your scenarios because of such an SSR.

- You really are a better scenario designer than to need chrome SSRs of marginal utility just to make your scenarios unique and attractive.

- If you're trying to reflect something that actually happened, go for it.

- If it's just fluff to make your scenario unique, leave it out and focus on making the tactical situation of the scenario unique.

- Did you really design Eye of the Tiger? One kick-a$$ scenario...and the SSR about the NOBA reflected events....a good SSR.


Just my $0.02

Jazz

 

[Gunner Scott]

Hey Scott,

Lottsa replies eh?

Ya, plenty of opoinions but my mind is starting to change.

All the points of my position has been mentioned by others, albeit, not all of them by any one person.

And I respect each and every point. I really think this SSR might be more of a pain in the butt then I thought.

- You, as the scenario designer can put in just about any SSR you want. It's your scenario.

True, but I would also like the scenario see some play too. Thus I am leaning towards nixing the Repair SSR.

- We, as the consuming public will decide to play them or not play them.

- I seriously doubt that anybody will play your scenarios just because you added an SSR as you mentioned.

Good points thus far Jazz, I recall the old ToT scenarios and how they were choked full of SSR's that I for the life of me, could not remember when play them.

- There are probably quite a few folks that will not play your scenarios because of such an SSR.

Well, I think I am going to dump it. Too many questions might need to be fielded with such an SSR.

- You really are a better scenario designer than to need chrome SSRs of marginal utility just to make your scenarios unique and attractive.

Thanks and this very thread has really helped in under standing that some rules should not be fiddled with.

- If you're trying to reflect something that actually happened, go for it.

Not really, I was just trying to give the game a little fog of war action.

- If it's just fluff to make your scenario unique, leave it out and focus on making the tactical situation of the scenario unique.

- Did you really design Eye of the Tiger? One kick-a$$ scenario...and the SSR about the NOBA reflected events....a good SSR.

Well, the plan is to dump the repair roll SSR, too much complication involved in trying to workout that perticular mechanic, heck, the pack is not even published and look how many people responded to this thread. I dont put threads like this up for my already bloated ego, but to get input from people like you and Ole as well as a host of others on weather an SSR like this can be done or not. And after further review, I would say not.

Eye of the Tiger sucks, the designer is a broke dick loser and sucks too. My favorite scenario I designed has to be "Showdown at Tug-Argon Pass" from the Annual. Crappy troops and crappy FT Italian tankettes.


Scott

 

[Glennbo]

I side with those who think there should be some historical basis for a unique SSR, not just to "spice things up".

I put a Repair SSR in my early Barbarossa "Mayhem" scenario. It allowed German armor leaders to add their DRM to MA/CMG repair attempts if Buttoned Up. It was put in solely to demonstrate the German panzer's great experience and tactical superiority at that point versus the Russian armor they faced during the first days of Barbarossa. My historical source stated that the disparity was especially great in that specific battle.

So my tweak was to prod a German player into displaying more confidence in their armor leadership than normal, and to try and repair a gun when behind Russian lines, rather than roam around without it.

The SSR Scott proposes here seems just to iron out a game mechanic that might be considered flawed by some. That may be a legitimate reason, depending upon Scott's vision of this specific battle. I may be waffling a bit here at the end, but scenario designers MUST BE FREE! :headbang:

 

[rickh03301]

I think that if you make the SSR optional would be the best solution.Those who are against it will still be able to enjoy the pack and making it optional would add a certain replay value all to its own.You still add your chrome and we get a great scenario pack.That's my opinion,anyways!


Rick

 

[MrP]

An optional SSR? No such thing as far as I'm aware. If you want to put it in or leave it out, have the conviction to do either, not leave it to the player to decide.

 

[Gunner]

An optional SSR? No such thing as far as I'm aware. If you want to put it in or leave it out, have the conviction to do either, not leave it to the player to decide.

Proving once and for all it is impossible to please everybody.

Gunner

 

[Ole Boe]

Maybe he could put the SSR in as an optional rule, and then add a second SSR making it optional whether the first SSR is optional or not.

That way, even MrP would be content, as he can choose the option of not having the SSR optional.

:clown:

 

[rickh03301]

Maybe he could put the SSR in as an optional rule, and then add a second SSR making it optional whether the first SSR is optional or not.

That way, even MrP would be content, as he can choose the option of not having the SSR optional.

:clown:

That's an option...!:nuts:


Rick

 

[2 Bit Bill]

I side with those who think there should be some historical basis for a unique SSR, not just to "spice things up".

I put a Repair SSR in my early Barbarossa "Mayhem" scenario. It allowed German armor leaders to add their DRM to MA/CMG repair attempts if Buttoned Up.

I call it tryin' to get cute.

Similar to the COI Armor Leader rule except all AL's could try and did have to be buttoned up('cept to fix the AAMG).
They were also allowed to add their modifier to the Immobilization Repair Attempt(needed "eyes").

Yesterday, while looking through some old crap, I found a playtest copy of the COD rules. It was interesting to see some sections rules which were totally nixed. I see the beginnings of ASL in COD. :halo:

 

[IYAOYAS]

I think SSRs should add historical flavor to the scenario, not change a rule for no historical reason.