Roll them bones?

[Actionjick]

In the APCR thread Sparifucil3 and I went slightly off topic when I started musing about good and bad dice rolls which led to me advising players to roll them bones as little as possible and not get dice happy. Jim stated that he liked to roll a lot in the right circumstances as he might get lucky. I wanted to continue as some good points and stories were being offered but it was correctly pointed out that the thread was going off topic so here we are.

Do you take all the shots available to you or only those with a reasonable chance of success?

For a while I was in the take every shot possible camp but that evolved into just take the shots that have a decent chance of success or necessary in the situation camp.. There are a couple reasons for that evolution.

I mainly played against Fish and we both liked to play fast, hence the Actionburk. A dice roll that has little chance of a decent outcome just slows the game down. For the realists just consider it as not squandering ammo.

SAN. I could leave it at that. Why roll when your opponent's SAN is one of the few numbers that will result in a result? I've watched my 10-2 led HMG heavy kill stack disintegrate after a " successful " dice roll. Jim related a similar story and I'm sure it's happened to everyone who has a few scenarios under their belt.

Finally it was self preservation. As I've related before, in the SOF series replay I stated that Fish was the ideal opponent, never losing his temper due to an unfavorable dice roll. Well that was the 80`s and by the 90's things had occasionally changed, perhaps due to too many low probability lucky shots. We were playing one night and after a lucky shot by me and an unlucky dice roll by him Fish grabbed his dice tower and hurled it against the wall. It missed the barn wood paneling and hit the masonry chimney riser, shattering upon impact. I immediately clutched my face and yelled " my eye! I've been injured! " BS of course but the reason the " eye protection required " sticker can be seen on his replacement dice tower. After that I thought I should back off on the 1 +2's for a while and maybe concentrate on other paths to victory.

I'm interested to hear how others view this, their approach to rolling them bones and any stories they'd like to relate. I love a good story. Thanks.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Tell the topic police to piss off

 

[Robin Reeve]

SAN is for me a good measure of when I should abstain from rolling the dice.
But only if it is 2-4 (i.e. 2.7, 5.5 and 8% probabilities for 2, 3 and 4 respectively).
With a higher SAN I stop caring, as it will so often activate (5 is 11% and 6 is 16.7% probabilities).

 

[Sparafucil3]

Chances are, as the attacker, you can't win without rolling some dice. I have seen many a game won on a 2+2. The more you take shots, the more chance you give yourself for a good DR. The reason I like the first Medrow article is because before I read that, I would rather take a single 20 -2 than two 8 -2 shots. After reading that article, it was an epiphany to me that you wanted to take as many shots with a negative modifier as you can. I always break my negative modifier shots up. If you only roll one time, you only have one chance for 1,1. If you roll twice, you've doubled your odds. If you got a good result, you still have firepower available for something else later in the turn. Conversely, I tend to combine +2 and worse shots into as big a shot as I can. The more firepower, the better as the best Final DR I can achieve is a 4 (1,1 +2 or more DRM). You have to be on a pretty big column to get an NMC or better on average. Even if you get the NMC, your opponent rates to PIN or better (i.e. escape unscathed) more often than he doesn't. The "feeling" part comes in with the 0 and +1 DRM shots.

So, I like to control when the dice are rolled as much as I can. As the ATTACKER, I try to put my opponent under pressure. I move HS's and other units to limit his fire options. If I can kill him without rolling dice, so much the better, but if I have to roll the dice, I want to roll them where and when I want to. As a DEFENDER, I skulk, taking away his chance to get lucky. I fall back to secondary positions so I get the first shot advantage on my opponent. I am not always successful in this, but I try. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

SAN is for me a good measure of when I should abstain from rolling the dice.
But only if it is 2-4 (i.e. 2.7, 5.5 and 8% probabilities for 2, 3 and 4 respectively).
With a higher SAN I stop caring, as it will so often activate (5 is 11% and 6 is 16.7% probabilities).

I look at this a little differently. If I have a better chance of breaking your unit than I do of the SAN breaking one of mine, I will likely take the shot. So if I am shooting a 2+1, I need to roll a 2 - 4 for a result. That happens about 16% of the time. If your unit breaks on a 6, pins on a 7, that means I get a break or better 42% of the time. As such, I stand about 9.25% chance of breaking a unit on a 2+1 shot. Your SAN of 4 has an 8.3% chance of occurring with a 1 result happening ~16% of the time it does. This means your chance of getting a SAN 1 which breaks me is about 1.4%. I will take a 2+1 all day long knowing the odds favor me. Then I will take into account where your Sniper is and what it is likely to harm. I would be less willing to roll if your Sniper is among a bunch of my CE tanks, less worried if it is likely to only strike rallyable Infantry. The odds are even more in my favor if your SAN is a 2 or a 3. It get's more interesting if your SAN is in the 5 or 6 range. Here, the odds start to even out and where your SAN is and what it is likely to hit plays a bigger factor than the actual numbers. You can't win ASL consistently if the best you can do is a coin flip. You need to make sure the odds are in your favor EVERY chance you get.

Mark Nixon's Hyper Sniper helped me a lot in figuring out how to mitigate the potential damage a Sniper can cause. If I am well positioned to limit the damage, I am more likely to roll the low odds dice and hope for the best. If I am not in such a position, I am less likely to take those shots. -- jim

 

[Actionjick]

Very nice Jim. This was the type of analysis I wanted to see.

 

[JoeArthur]

I played Craig Benn at a tourny recently (a very good UK player) and he was rolling every shot available. I asked him why and he stated "something might happen" like rolling a three............

 

[dlazov]

When I first started playing ASL back in 1985/6 I felt the same as Jim. But after I got out of the Army in 1991 and met a newbie named Mike, I went over to his house and he had never played ASL face to face yet (he played some SL) he had setup The Last Bid (pulled all the counters), and said he was interested in playing RB. I told him he was crazy! He challenged me by calling me a chicken poop (we were both fresh out of the Army) so I took the Germans to tech him a lesson. He turned out to be a very good player, insightful in rules knowledge, and generally a very awesome friend. That weekend (his wife kicked me out Sunday evening lol) we finished The Last Bid with a ton of stories, from Death Stars with rate to CC with a 1st Line HS killing off 3x 8-3-8s and 9-2 to falling rubble killing all in its path and snipers killing a 10-0 and the three conscripts getting HOB going berserk and surviving murderous DFF to get into CC. We saw and experienced a lot that weekend.

But that was only the precursor to Mike and I playing 5-8 RB CGs over the next three years. We saw and experienced everything over those years and we learned that eventually things will even out.

This still holds true today, but at a smaller scale. A lot of the current ASL scenarios are small scenarios that only involve 4-12 MMC and 2-4 AFVs, on 1-3 boards. So some changes in tactics is required.

When I joined the NIASL club in the 2000s we would meet every Wednesday from 6:30-11:00, we would usually be able to finish mist scenarios but some would carry over.

The biggest thing that I learned with Mike is that my PMC was at least a 10, after all the crazy things we did, saw or experienced in those 3 years in Stalingrad.

It’s all part of the game, it all evens out eventually and it does help that I have a special DNA/Telepathy relationship with my dice, ?

 

[Sparafucil3]

It’s all part of the game, it all evens out eventually and it does help that I have a special DNA/Telepathy relationship with my dice, ?

I agree, it all evens out eventually. Just because it eventually evens out, doesn't mean it will even out this game -- jim

 

[von Marwitz]

In the APCR thread Sparifucil3 and I went slightly off topic when I started musing about good and bad dice rolls which led to me advising players to roll them bones as little as possible and not get dice happy. Jim stated that he liked to roll a lot in the right circumstances as he might get lucky. I wanted to continue as some good points and stories were being offered but it was correctly pointed out that the thread was going off topic so here we are.

Do you take all the shots available to you or only those with a reasonable chance of success?

For a while I was in the take every shot possible camp but that evolved into just take the shots that have a decent chance of success or necessary in the situation camp.. There are a couple reasons for that evolution.

I mainly played against Fish and we both liked to play fast, hence the Actionburk. A dice roll that has little chance of a decent outcome just slows the game down. For the realists just consider it as not squandering ammo.

SAN. I could leave it at that. Why roll when your opponent's SAN is one of the few numbers that will result in a result? I've watched my 10-2 led HMG heavy kill stack disintegrate after a " successful " dice roll. Jim related a similar story and I'm sure it's happened to everyone who has a few scenarios under their belt.

Finally it was self preservation. As I've related before, in the SOF series replay I stated that Fish was the ideal opponent, never losing his temper due to an unfavorable dice roll. Well that was the 80`s and by the 90's things had occasionally changed, perhaps due to too many low probability lucky shots. We were playing one night and after a lucky shot by me and an unlucky dice roll by him Fish grabbed his dice tower and hurled it against the wall. It missed the barn wood paneling and hit the masonry chimney riser, shattering upon impact. I immediately clutched my face and yelled " my eye! I've been injured! " BS of course but the reason the " eye protection required " sticker can be seen on his replacement dice tower. After that I thought I should back off on the 1 +2's for a while and maybe concentrate on other paths to victory.

I'm interested to hear how others view this, their approach to rolling them bones and any stories they'd like to relate. I love a good story. Thanks.

Classic answer: It depends...

I am not the the 'fast player-camp' so the idea of not rolling the dice in order to speed up play is an alien concept to me.

"ASL is a game of chances" is one of the most important wisdoms about the game taught to me by the late Christian Koppmeyer. Fighting for that extra -1 DRM or +1 DRM as a matter of course does make a difference in the long run, so it should be adopted as a principle.

One might add that it could be prudent to be aware of a certain bias (the English term of which currently eludes me) which lets you overestimate the probability of events that you remember well. An example would be to overrate the danger of firing some low odds shots that triggered a Sniper which - naturally - killed your 10-2. As a consequence it is in human nature to overrate the danger of Sniper shots under certain conditions due to such events.

Lastly, if your situation is such that you will very likely lose unless you take a greater risk than you would under normal circumstances, I'd do it. After all, I am sacrificing cardboard here, not blood. Lose anyway or grab victory from the jaws of defeat.

That said, however, one has to be very careful about these situations: Humans dislike losing things they possess much more than not gaining things they never had. This phenomenon leads to irrational economic behavior that smart ruthless companies will systematically take advantage of at your cost. Translated into the ASL context this means that you have to be careful not to waste undue assets to save a unit that you will very likely lose otherwise.

Well, and if the enemy Sniper is dead and no Booby Traps around, of course, I'd take dozens of 1+3 crap shots. Maybe I get a couple of Pin results, which trigger my Sniper that takes out his 10-2. ASL is a game of chances after all...

von Marwitz

 

[Actionjick]

Classic answer: It depends...

I am not the the 'fast player-camp' so the idea of not rolling the dice in order to speed up play is an alien concept to me.



von Marwitz

Quite understandable, it's not everyone's style of play and that's ok by me. I always played quickly and was fortunate that my main opponent was of the same mindset. A methodical player versus a speedy opponent is not the ideal matchup. Still, any matchup is better than no matchup.

 

[BattleSchool]

A few minor points re so-called, low-odds shots.

I agree with Jim's point regarding the odds of generating a Sniper attack that will have more dire consequences than a successful low-odds shot. Moreover, success can be defined in a number of ways. We often define success as a break, casualty/step reduction, or elimination, but in certain circumstances a pin or DM result can be well worth the risk.

A pinned leader cannot rout with a broken unit without voluntarily breaking, nor can he take advantage of an Infiltration result in CC. Occasionally the fire of a pinned unit can be reduced enough so as to have no possible effect in the AFPh, not even enough to DM a brokie. It goes without saying that a pinned unit cannot advance, let alone take a PAATC. A pinned unit is also at risk of breaking when conducting a PF Check, and is at a disadvantage in CC, especially if already CX. In other words, a low-odds shot that at best can only yield a PTC could nonetheless prove decisive, especially in the end game.

Finally, although a one-up-two shot appears to be asking for a Sniper Activation, it is not as bad as you might think when undertaken by most Finnish or Commonwealth MMC. Because they are immune from Cowering, I tend to be more liberal with their fire, because I know that the odds of success are greater. (The reverse is also true. I've watched more than a few players take supposed low-odd shots only to realize that there was never any chance of being able to DM a broken unit, for example, especially when Conscripts are doing the firing.)

 

[Sparafucil3]

The real problem with generic answers is there are way more exceptions to the rule than when the rule is applied in most cases. -- jim

 

[The Purist]

I am a fast player and would rather move than shoot. At the same time I like my opponent to shoot plenty,... provided I am not giving him good shots unnecessarily. Malfunctioned SW/Guns are worth some 2 +1 or 2 flat. On the attack I'll use Op Fire if the defender is concealed and will send units out to strip ? by one method or another. On the defence skulking is the rule but skirmishers, if they can be spared, are deployed out front to help deflect concealment stripping scouts.

I'm not a fan of the low odds shot unless there are negative mods or at worst a 0 modifier. A 2 +0 is not a bad shot but a 2 +1 would usually only be risked if there is a viable threat that needs to be engaged.

The risk of snipers does not really deter me with a low enemy SAN but I do pay more attention with higher SAN if only because the 1s or 2s will happen. In the current Dinant CG I went 17 (?) attempts without a 1 or 2 but then hit 5 activations in the next 7 attempts with a French SAN of 4. Now I sit at 6 activations for 27 attempts. This has hurt the Germans. The dice do average out.

I have, on occasion kept a loose track of the DR, almost like card counting, quickly working out the odds of what the next DR may be. It's certainly more superstition than science as the next DR could be anything, but I have been right on a few important occasions (that view may itself be suspect). Then again, who hasn't 'gone with their gut' and been proven right.

 

[Perry]

My gut averages about 50/50.

And there are very few circumstances in which I would not take a 2+1 if I had nothing better to do.

 

[Actionjick]

Thought I would pull this thread up in response to the " Statistics " thread.

 

[Jacometti]

I take every shot I possibly can.

I found 2 + 2 shots to have a higher likelihood to affect a scenario's outcome than 16 + 3 shots. Simply because I take many more of the first.

 

[Actionjick]

I take every shot I possibly can.

I found 2 + 2 shots to have a higher likelihood to affect a scenario's outcome than 16 + 3 shots. Simply because I take many more of the first.

Interesting, but you may want to evaluate the temperament of your opponent before indulging in those low probability rolls to excess lest your troops and boards become Airborne units.

 

[Faded 8-1]

Interesting, but you may want to evaluate the temperament of your opponent before indulging in those low probability rolls to excess lest your troops and boards become Airborne units.

That just makes the victory all the sweeter! One must bask in the warm radiance of one's opponent's misery!

 

[Fort]

I almost always will take a shot no matter the odds if there is no malfunction possible and the firing unit is not likely to get a better shot.