Rules I dont like

[Jazz]

Well, anyone who knows me knows I hate C8.9 Ammo depletion. No matter how anyone has ever tried to explain it to me, it still just seems like you get a free shot if you miss the first time.

But I have learned to accept it, because it's in the book.

If you look at the TK numbers for Russian 76L APCR, the extra chance to roll TH is about the only good thing the special ammo gives you.

 

[jwert02]

Double Fun

Just the other day I tried to use APCR vs. a T-34. Depletion # was 5, I rolled a 6; OK, no shot: try the AP. Next DR is a 3. Now, as you can see, if I'd skipped the APCR try there'd be one dead tank. As it was, the next DR -the TK - was a 9 or something. I used to like the 'freebie' shot; am beginning to hate it. . .

Well, anyone who knows me knows I hate C8.9 Ammo depletion. No matter how anyone has ever tried to explain it to me, it still just seems like you get a free shot if you miss the first time.

But I have learned to accept it, because it's in the book.

You know its not often I get two buddies for the price of one. My good buddy Roy absolutely hates this rule in every game we play and Alan now dislikes it against my T-34's. Hmm perhaps its me...

 

[Pfc TAZ]

It's not ASL if you don't use the rules.

Hi Rob,

While I disagree with making house rules...when one rule, and only one, applied at random, really annoys both players there is no problem forgetting about it.

We are there to have FUN. Not please the ASL gods.

And we'll continue to do it until the Pope of ASL excommunicates us.:devious:

The ROF rules feels perfect to me. The bigger MGs should have a higher ROF, because they have a larger punch and are the much bigger threat. Changing the ROF of a HMG to a 1 completely weakens it and doesn't make it much of a threat when you are attacking a position.

That's why they have a high FP. We're talking Rate of Fire. They have 6-8 FP factors because they have more punch. It's seems to be a pattern in the game that the higher caliber a gun is, the lower the ROF. They all still have high FP. You just can't shoot them as much.

I bought this game in 1986(?) and these two things bothered me during my first "Fighting Withdrawl". They STILL bother me!

Randomness is part of the game, and I enjoy that. I am not looking for a straight simulation, I want fun, fair, exciting gameplay. But, randomness applied to the wrong situations makes for rules I don't like. The subject of the thread.

Tim

 

[sgtono]

Hi Rob,

......
We are there to have FUN. Not please the ASL gods.
..........

Tim

A fact too often forgotten these days, I believe.

Keith

 

[Countertroll]

Rules I dislike

Night:
An illuminated unit can not shoot into an adjacent hex if it is not also illuminated.
I know it is just a game, but this rule bothers me the most. It is called probing fire and should be allowed. It would be area fire and should also have some hindrance modifier due to the lighting.

 

[Priest]

Let's see Platoon Movement, Snipers and ELR.

 

[Brian W]

LATW HEAT is too powerful. Maybe if the dud number were 7 instead of 12 . . .

 

[MrP]

Indestrucable walls - hey, I can rubble a building but the brick wall outside stands firm. Never liked that one.
Slopes are a pain in the bum too.

Doesn't stop me from playing them, but they jar a bit....

JMHO.

Ian

 

[Sgt. Przybylo]

Let me take a stab at Snipers, Ammo Dep, and ROF, and let me qualify my statement by saying that I don't expect to change anyone's mind here, this is just my 2c.

Snipers: Always an unknown on the battlefield, and one that is not under the control of the battlefield commander of either side. A sniper is trained to wait for the best opportunity, the best chance to disrupt the enemy. In many cases, going for the kill is not the best opportunity. Kill a man, and his squad will mark him for graves registration, wound him severely enough, and they have to carry him. Not to mention the psych effect of an unseen bullet. I think ASL captures this x-factor fairly well. But then on this I am biased.

Ammo Dep: I never used to like this. I hated the "free" shot. It took me a while to get over the effect of the die roll as an event on the battlefield. I had to picture a loader, frantically going into the shell storage, all the while his tank commander screaming at him, and the poor guy having to throw an AP round in the breech while screaming back "We aint got any more dammit!"

ROF: Maybe I can get some support from other Infantry types here, but your MGs are your key weapons on the battlefield. The bigger, the better. To use modern US terms, an M60 (mmg?) position gets more attention then the standard rifleman hole, and if you are lucky enough to have a .50 cal on the line, MUCH effort is put into the placement and supply of that weapon. RoF to me reflects that effort, and that concern to keep that damn gun firing, no matter what. (I was one of these guys too)

 

[imars]

No one has mentioned this...

Battlefield integrity. Though I like the idea of it, I have never actually used it with another player. Though scenarios print the BI values on the scenario, what would be best is to print the BI breakdown values. Still, there seems to be a psychological hurdle to overcome.

I notice a lot of people complaining about rules that are too complex. Paddies, Panjis, Night, Beach. I am surprised that no one has mentioned Caves. I think this is more a case of unfamiliarity breeds contempt, to paraphrase a saying. If people spent as much effort trying to understand Rout, Close Combat, or Defensive Fire principles, they would have a lot less trouble with these rules.

-Michael

 

[The Purist]

1. Slopes. Added complexity not worth result.

I don't find them too, too cumbersome

2. Barbed Wire. Indestructible.

I suppose it depends on how you view them. If you believe they are just a single coil then then yes, I'd agree. But then it would not be something that could hang you up for more than a turn or two. If you think they represent a serious 'fortification', multiple rows, stacked in places, staked to the ground to represent a true obstacle to movement, then I would disagree.[/QUOTE]

7. Platoon Movement. Obviously abusable.

Everybody's favourite sleeze complaint.

8. Foxholes. Units too vulnerable in them.

I used to think so too, until I really thought about it. A hole dug in the middle of a field with no covered exit *is* a trap. The rout rules did help out with surviving interdiction but even an assault move in the open from hole to hole would be hazardous. A 'reality' rule that actually works, IMO.

 

[Roy]

Battlefield integrity.

My friend Mike explained his definition of Battlefield Integrity to me when I first got started. He said it was like "...kicking someone when they're down...". I think I have to agree. :surprise:

 

[Jazz]

LATW HEAT is too powerful. Maybe if the dud number were 7 instead of 12 . . .

I did some playtest on the still born Korea project by Mike Reed and Mark Nuekom (spelling?) were working on the the 90's. They added an additional DR to read from a chart the TK number for a LATW/shaped charge shot once a hit was secured. I heard somewhere that this was one of the sticking points between MMP and the group formerly know as TOT that kept this project seeing the light of day?

It seems that a number of folks think ASL LATW shaped charge weapons are too strong, and a number of them like them the way they are....

Shrug...

 

[Legion]

My friend Mike explained his definition of Battlefield Integrity to me when I first got started. He said it was like "...kicking someone when they're down...". I think I have to agree. :surprise:

AND THAT is why i it!

Come-on, the rules are not that difficult if you have a piece of paper, and it is true that when you have wiped out 25+% of an opponents force (especially if they are poorly led or facing AFVs without AT support etc) then they are going to be a lot more nervous and a lot less Gung Ho (unless they are Japanese :nuts: )

 

[Countertroll]

Battlefield Integrity

The BI rules are in no way difficult, they are just not a lot of fun. That is the beauty of a rule being optional.

 

[imars]

Battlefield Integrity

Just like what was said above...the rules are easy if you have a piece of paper. I agree 100 % with that statement. But to have one more piece of paper flying around when the table is already crowded with rule books, counters, quick reference cards, dice towers, and food, I easily lose track of it.

Good point though about kicking an opponent when he is down. I can see where a lot of people would fail their personal moral check quick.

"By the way, now that I waxed your kill stack with my bounding first fire multiple critical hit, I get to apply BI to your guys."

-Michael

 

[Jazz]

AND THAT is why i it!

Come-on, the rules are not that difficult if you have a piece of paper, and it is true that when you have wiped out 25+% of an opponents force (especially if they are poorly led or facing AFVs without AT support etc) then they are going to be a lot more nervous and a lot less Gung Ho (unless they are Japanese :nuts: )

Problem is, most scenarios these days (or in any days for that matter) are not playtested using it. I can think of a number of scenarios that would become unbalanced if it was use. Most of the scenarios with '39 Poles come to mind off the top of my head.

I suppose and argument could be made for historical accuracy....but then one needs to ask why they play the game. To simulate history or to enter into a competition with your opponent where each player has an equal chance of winning based on the quality of their play.

 

[commissarmatt]

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I have to say that the way snipers are handled
is one of the best rules in the system. The sniper rules achieve exactly the effect
that they should, as someone already pointed out. Roy, I don't know why you can't be
convinced that the special ammo rules are okay. Simply having APCR capability makes
your gun more effective. Concentrate on the effect, not the minutiae of each DR.
If the game had been designed in a different way, so that you'd _know_ you had APCR
for a given shot, then there would be a constant thread in every discussion group
about how the game doesn't have enough fog of war, and we as players have too much
control over our forces. I think the special ammo rules are elegant and achieve
the effect they were designed to achieve.

Now, as to things that are truly bad or even perhaps broken, platoon movement
definitely needs to be fixed. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm the kind of guy
that wants to play the rules as is, rather than designing my own game and my own
house rules, but I really wouldn't want to play someone who would take advantage of
platoon movement to sleaze me. It's just plain inconsistent with the rest of the
system, and open to lots of abuse that would seriously take the fun out of the
game for me. The assault move concealment bump also sucks rocks too.

 

[The Purist]

Bi

I play with BI anytime my opponent is in agreement and have used it quite a lot over the years. While there is the 'potential' for the BI rules to have a major effect on a game I haven't really noticed it until one side really begins to fall apart and then it really doesn't matter.

Of course, one mught argue there is always the possiblilty of those last turn hold outs hanging on by the skin of their teeth. But I think BI adds another touch of realism in that a unit that gets shot to pieces is more likely to melt away or stop attacking. This has the effect of making players think twice before making risky moves(or moves a real squad would be unlikely to do, ie. suicide attacks) ,...a pseudo casualty cap, if you will. Besides, in small scenarios (< 10 squads per side) BI is not used so it won't effect the micro games.

 

[Chas]

Herr Commissar,

Right on! But wasnt there errata or something to the concealment bump????

Chas