Which rule do you want to change?

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,047
Reaction score
227
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
We have been playing accordying to rules as written for years never thinking about the absurdity of a big lot of them.. at this point, with so many years playing and the fantastic level of researching about lot of battles, weapons, vehicles.. we just deserve a serious rules improvement..
I mean, looooooot of years playing and enjoying ASL always trying to learn the rules and understanding the rule sistema to get the "tactics" to win scenarios.. Finally I´ve discovered a lot of "back doors" used normally by average/good players to get advantage on games,.. bypass tactics using preferibly far away vehicles, move some units first to get closer looking for safe routes, halftracks/AFVs CE to freeze Upper levels,.. some CC tactics.. Fire with Special Ammo guns when needing low DR to hit.... all questions around using same DR for ROF, Hull/Turret,...... I think this thread is about them,,

I think all of them as "minor problems" to a fantastic rule sistem that may be greatly improved eliminating the maximun of those "broken" points.. Of course, I know is HERESSY (in capital letters).

Maybe someone anywhere have the same worries and got time enough to research about something interesting to "improve" the enjoyment of the game accordying to this same feeling... Maybe.. so this lot of posts.. No time here unfortunately.. :waiting:

Thanks :thumbsup:
 

Rock SgtDan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
2,531
Reaction score
108
Location
State of Confusion
First name
Dan
Country
llSlovenia
Fog of War -- provide blank counters in national colors. Allow unlimited use with at least one real counter. Encourage making all stacks the same number of counters high.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,047
Reaction score
227
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
Are there anywhere WA counters with arrows pointing to specific hexsides to make possible using a hexside per hexside WA [similar to Deluxe] in normal ASL? Or has anyone tried something similar?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
20,671
Reaction score
4,920
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Are there anywhere WA counters with arrows pointing to specific hexsides to make possible using a hexside per hexside WA [similar to Deluxe] in normal ASL? Or has anyone tried something similar?
Put the WA counter on/near the hexside. They're big hexes. A few extra WA counters will hardly be noticed. Alternately draw a dot using a sharpie.

JR
 

Jacometti

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
3,575
Reaction score
1,232
Location
Halifax, NS
Country
llCanada
Put the WA counter on/near the hexside. They're big hexes. A few extra WA counters will hardly be noticed. Alternately draw a dot using a sharpie.

JR
that will obviously not do, JR. We need a counter. A whole bunch of them.
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
875
Reaction score
178
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Case C4 for Motion vehicles by far my least favorite rule!

Firer-Based Hit Determination DRM should be edited as follows:

Case C4 Motion/Non-Stopped Firer....
Case C5 Motion Firer (stabilized gun +2) (Other: Doubled lower die) ...

The effect of this is to penalize a Motion Firer roughly equivalently to (but not identically to) a moving stopped Bounding First Firer.
 
Last edited:

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
2,947
Reaction score
740
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Show a real unit to strip concealment. I believe you, its real.
Also roll for blaze before flame spread. Wtf
 

Ed Donoghue

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
69
Reaction score
38
Location
NC
Country
llUnited States
I bought SL when first released at Origins held @ Wagner College in Staten Island, New York. I relished the idea of being able to arm Allied infantry with captured PFs. Now in ASL, except as an optional rule, that is no longer possible.

I suggest that when a German MMC is captured a dr is made to see if that MMC has possession of a PF, using the same year and unit size dr modifiers as normally used by the German units. Any captured PFs would suffer normal captured use penalties and a PAATC for use against an armed vehicle in same hex bypass.
 

Stewart

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
67
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Put the WA counter on/near the hexside. They're big hexes. A few extra WA counters will hardly be noticed. Alternately draw a dot using a sharpie.

JR
This is in the works right after the increased board sizes....Oh wait....
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,047
Reaction score
227
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
The TPBF needs to change. If you are on a 3rd level and the enemy is on ground level...the freeze is just play F@#$ing stupid. Both parties should have to be eligible for TPBF for it to have freezing effects.
TPBF and ADJACENT, IMHO.. this is a real thread.

According to actual rules a unit at 2nd level may not fire to an enemy unit ADJACENT at 2nd level if there is an enemy Ht at ground level bypassing the hex..
 

olli

Elder Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
7,276
Reaction score
767
Location
Scotland
Country
llGermany
My pet peeve is a stack of Mmc’s with a leader and support weapons can move the max and in the Advance phase advance one hex , a single MMC and leader moves the max as riders but cannot dismount?
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,047
Reaction score
227
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
This is a table to show the effect of CH using VTT and ATT based on SHOTs and not HITS. I mean a given number betwen number of HITs would be Critical HITS and not a number of SHOTs. By using the to HIT DR, the actual CHs number is depending on the shots taken with no relevance of the number needed to hit at all. Result is that ONE of every THREE HITS needing 3 or less to HIT is a CH, or ONE of every SIX needing 4, 2 or less tan 2. ITOH only ONE of every 36 HITS needing 12 or more are CHs. As I´ve seen along the years this rule is favouring excesively low numbers to hit, and doing short/medium games more dicey than needed.. I mean, if needing a low number, is very probable a HIT will be also a CH -and ROF if not using third die for ROF-, and if needing bigger number, the probability of getting CH are gettinh lower in reference to the obtained HITs

10066
IMHO this rule needs a change to a DR after every HIT to get a CH, looking that every HIT has the same opportunity to be a CH without depending on the original number needed to get the HIT. I´ve added a second table using a CH DR after every hit with a 2 or 12 being a CH (1 in 18) as an EX to be used in short/medium scenarios trying to reduce dicey results..

10067

Of course, this kind of scenarios are almost the 100% of scenarios I can play because my time avaibility.. and surely for a long time :(
 
Last edited:

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,268
Reaction score
717
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
This is a table to show the effect of CH using VTT and ATT based on SHOTs and not HITS. I mean a given number betwen number of HITs would be Critical HITS and not a number of SHOTs. By using the to HIT DR, the actual CHs number is depending on the shots taken with no relevance of the number needed to hit at all. Result is that ONE of every THREE HITS needing 3 or less to HIT is a CH, or ONE of every SIX needing 4, 2 or less tan 2. ITOH only ONE of every 36 HITS needing 12 or more are CHs. As I´ve seen along the years this rule i an Es favouring excesively low numbers to hit, and doing short/medium games more dicey than needed.. I mean, if needing a low number, is very probable a HIT will be also a CH -and ROF if not using third die for ROF-, and if needing bigger number, the probability of getting CH are gettinh lower in reference to the obtained HITs

View attachment 10066
IMHO this rule needs a change to a DR after every HIT to get a CH, looking that every HIT has the same opportunity to be a CH without depending on the original number needed to get the HIT. I´ve added a second table using a CH DR after every hit with a 2 or 12 being a CH (1 in 18) as an EX to be used in short/medium scenarios trying to reduce dicey results..

View attachment 10067

Of course, this kind of scenarios are almost the 100% of scenarios I can play because my time avaibility.. and surely for a long time :(
Miguel,
Very thoughtful analysis. Makes sense. Therefore, I like it... :)
Steve
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,454
Reaction score
497
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
This is a table to show the effect of CH using VTT and ATT based on SHOTs and not HITS. I mean a given number betwen number of HITs would be Critical HITS and not a number of SHOTs. By using the to HIT DR, the actual CHs number is depending on the shots taken with no relevance of the number needed to hit at all. Result is that ONE of every THREE HITS needing 3 or less to HIT is a CH, or ONE of every SIX needing 4, 2 or less tan 2. ITOH only ONE of every 36 HITS needing 12 or more are CHs. As I´ve seen along the years this rule i an Es favouring excesively low numbers to hit, and doing short/medium games more dicey than needed.. I mean, if needing a low number, is very probable a HIT will be also a CH -and ROF if not using third die for ROF-, and if needing bigger number, the probability of getting CH are gettinh lower in reference to the obtained HITs

View attachment 10066
IMHO this rule needs a change to a DR after every HIT to get a CH, looking that every HIT has the same opportunity to be a CH without depending on the original number needed to get the HIT. I´ve added a second table using a CH DR after every hit with a 2 or 12 being a CH (1 in 18) as an EX to be used in short/medium scenarios trying to reduce dicey results..

View attachment 10067

Of course, this kind of scenarios are almost the 100% of scenarios I can play because my time avaibility.. and surely for a long time :(
Great points! I've long felt the same way, but the CH has been among "the big events" in every ASL game since, I don't know...forever! I think the means of scoring one hasn't really changed since CoI, so I wouldn't dare to adopt a second-DR CH method. To do so seems rather beyond heretical!

But since we're all dreaming here, an easy solution - which would barely slow down play at all - would be to say that any TH DR2 now becomes a "CH possibility," but never an actual hit. Once a DR2 has been scored, you must then reroll to see if you hit at all - using the original TH#s and all of the original DRMs, of course.

The advantage in this case would be to spare us the extra DR on every hit. The disadvantage would be all those frustrated gunners who get their hearts handed to them after following up a DR2 with a miss (...let alone Boxcars).

But however it's done, it would be nice to have a CH strike the hull for a change (which could now happen). And with the above rule, you could even say that follow-up snakes require yet another TH attempt, this time for an extra-Critical Hit (tripled TK#? Or just an additional DRM TK?). Extra-extra-CH (ad infinitum) may follow... Finally that really long-shot opportunity for your LMG to kill the Tiger by sniping the crew through the vision slits!
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,712
Reaction score
1,061
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
Finally that really long-shot opportunity for your LMG to kill the Tiger by sniping the crew through the vision slits!
MGs never get CH, and this should remain like this.

Beyond that, while i see the advantages of refining a bit the process, it should not lead to excessive complication. Another DR for every hit is too cumbersome.

BTW, if i am not mistaken, from Miguel's table there would be more CH than less, which is contrary to Miguel's goal of reducing dicyness.

For me, the less onerous solution would be to process a VTT CH closer to the current ITT CH mechanism, ie you roll a subsequent dr 《= than the modified TH to confirm the CH. That should lower the number of low-odds, long range shots while recycling an existing process.
If you really don't like CH, one can use the subsequent dr following an Improbable hit, but that would result in too few CHs imo.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,047
Reaction score
227
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
I think the key is resolve the CH on the effect DR and not on the to HIT DR.. I like the CH sistem for ITT shots because greater to HiT numbers and negative modifiers increase the CH probability.. and it needs a new dr lot of times.. I can’t see the problem in rolling a new dr for VTT and ATT if we do it for ITT..
To avoid an increase in CHs we need 1CH per 21HITs.. with those numbers probability of a CH needing a 7 to hit are the same using both process.. I think a good solution is use a d20 die, like the one recommended for counting MPs.. 1 in 20 is a CH.. my option is the most similar with normal d6 dice..

I agree Lot of long shot low numbers attemps to hit are done because CHs is depending on shots, so favouring the player doing more shots, usually the one with more guns to fire.. and usually the attacker because doing more unfavourble shots..
 
Last edited:

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
1,374
Reaction score
511
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
But why stop there? If you start changing the way CHs are scored, you'll soon want to revisit the effect of DRMs, and will want to make them more consistent.

Say you're making a TH DR. For a given situation, you have an Original DR that is the maximum possible for a hit. If you add a new +1 DRM, the net effect is that this maximum hit DR in now a miss, so your overall chance of scoring a hit is reduced by exactly the chance of rolling this precise DR.

So, the effect of a +1DRM (say, being BU vs CE, or some hindrance when selecting a target) is quite dependent on the situation. When firing with a close to 50% chance of hitting (say your maximum hit is on DR 7 - 58% chance of hitting), a +1DRM will lose you a 1/6 chance of a hit - from 58% down to 42%. If you're firing a very easy hit (maximum hit on DR10) or a pretty difficult one (hit on DR 4 or less), this same +1DRM will lose you half that - 8% instead of 16%.

The game is pretty abstracted already. The game mechanisms are already a big compromise between "realism" and playability.

So, to remain on topic - I don't know what rule I'd like to change, but my vote goes against anything that adds more complexity.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,454
Reaction score
497
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
But why stop there? If you start changing the way CHs are scored, you'll soon want to revisit the effect of DRMs, and will want to make them more consistent.

Say you're making a TH DR. For a given situation, you have an Original DR that is the maximum possible for a hit. If you add a new +1 DRM, the net effect is that this maximum hit DR in now a miss, so your overall chance of scoring a hit is reduced by exactly the chance of rolling this precise DR.

So, the effect of a +1DRM (say, being BU vs CE, or some hindrance when selecting a target) is quite dependent on the situation. When firing with a close to 50% chance of hitting (say your maximum hit is on DR 7 - 58% chance of hitting), a +1DRM will lose you a 1/6 chance of a hit - from 58% down to 42%. If you're firing a very easy hit (maximum hit on DR10) or a pretty difficult one (hit on DR 4 or less), this same +1DRM will lose you half that - 8% instead of 16%.

The game is pretty abstracted already. The game mechanisms are already a big compromise between "realism" and playability.

So, to remain on topic - I don't know what rule I'd like to change, but my vote goes against anything that adds more complexity.
Interesting thought with DRMs. I'd need to think about this more deeply, but is this really a problem...?

If you are 15 feet away while firing at the side of a very-large barn, being BU probably doesn't matter much. But at 1000 yards, firing at a quickly moving, rather-small barn (more of a shed, really), the TH odds would necessarily become more difficult. I imagine that little things (i.e. DRM, like being BU or changing your TCA) would then become - perhaps geometrically - greater factors in the final odds. That is, you might be able to hit that distant, fast-moving vehicle, but you're not gonna do it while spinning around with your vision hindered!

P.S. I still don't think my CH method adds to the complexity of the system - surely we don't need more of that! But this is a thread about imagining changes to the system - and I'm pretty sure I won't be the one who makes that decision.
 
Top