Which rule do you want to change?

[commissarmatt]

Holy smoke, have I been playing it wrong all these years?

COT to enter a building (in otherwise Open Ground) isn't doubled when moving across an elevation change but is rather +1. So 2 MF to walk into a building, 3MF to walk up a hill into a building. The walking uphill in rough/brush/grain/woods/etc makes a lot of sense but I just don't see it for buildings (and maybe some other structures).

 

[zgrose]

Holy smoke, have I been playing it wrong all these years?

You have not. This is way I'd rather have the rule setup.

 

[PTY]

OK. Second rule change -- weapons crews/teams to use MMG/HMG, bazookas, etc. I know someone will shout "grudge rules". I would say rules that accurately reflect actual use and doctrine.

 

[Robin Reeve]

When a squad is CR'ed, roll a dr for each carried SW : 1-3 the resulting HS keeps it ; 4-6 the SW is unpossessed.
I never understood why a surviving HS of a CR automatically keeps possession of the SW.

 

[Gordon]

The one that always causes me to lose?

 

[FlatPackFred]

What a great set of ideas and I'm a little disappointed in myself that I hadn't thought of some of them. 3MF to move up hill into a building makes so much sense that I'm going to change my choice to that one and just grin and bear the special ammunition, As for deploying tanks ...

 

[Sparky]

why stop with one single rule.. but up the ante to a whole rules section. 3 letters..

O.B.A.

 

[Tater]

I would change the FT versus vehicles to the Albany rule.

It is just too easy to smoke a Tiger, run up a FT and kill it on an "8"

Rich

Yeah, just run that squad right up adjacent to that Tiger...no problem...

 

[Tater]

Vehicle bypass freeze (VBF) - it's gutsy for a squad to CC an AFV. It's also gutsy for an AFV to roll up to some structure knowing they could get blazed. But, as it is now, vehicle bypass freeze is too powerful.

A vehicle rolling into bypass in a 40m (supposed ASL scale) wide hex could be as much as 100 feet from the actual structure...not really all that risky. And contrary to claims I have seen Tanks getting up close and personnel was not that uncommon and was pretty successful vs enemy infantry.

Thus, if there are known defenders in the bypass hex, require that the crew pass a vehicle-bypass-task-check (VBTC). If the crew passes the VBTC, then they may bypass. If the crew fails the VBTC, then they may: 1) spend 1MP to stop in the hex in which it took the VBTC; 2) move elsewhere, or; 3) enter the hex without using bypass movement. VBTC DRM: -X for leadership, +1 if CE, and +1 if the defenders can claim street fighting. A VBTC DR=12 stalls the vehicle in the hex in which it took the VBTC. A VBTC DR=2 has no effect. Finally, the vehicle may only roll its VBTC within one or two hexes of a hex to be bypassed, and it may only fail one VBTC per MPh. Thus, in theory, if there were an endless number of houses to be bypassed, each containing known defenders, then the vehicle could bypass as many as it wished, ignoring MPs for this theoretical example, until it failed its first VBTC. A VBTC is made after spending MPs to enter the hex in which the VBTC is made.

Thoughts? Yet to be determined - and a question to fellow players: should the VBTC be a secret roll? I think not, but I do like an old, classic head fake.

Seems overly complex...and how would a tanker know if an enemy unit is capable of street fighting or not. All seems overly contrived.

I think the best solution is just to make it more dangerous. As I suggest above just removing the "Motion/Non-stopped" DRM for vehicles in bypass versus CC would probably reduce instances of VBMf by half or more. Instead of the average Squad having a final 4 CCV (5 base CCV - 2 Motion/Non-stopped + 1 SF = 4 Final) that same squad would have a final 6 CCV...that is a huge difference in game terms for risk vs reward particularly measured against the overall value of what the average tank represents in a scenario. I might go even further and say remove that same DRM vs LATW when fired at bypassing vehicles of the same hex...now that PF hits on an 8 (+2 backblast) vs a bypassing vehicle instead of a 6 (+2 BB & +2 Motions/Non-stopped).

Making it more dangerous (less cost effective) forces the player to conduct a mental TC any time they consider VBMf...and it keeps VBMf a player decision (cost value analysis) rather than relegating it to the vagaries of the dice. Keeping actions in the hands of the players (rather than the dice) is critical to the enjoyment of ASL.

 

[Yuri0352]

Two rules I would change:

1) make MA repair Mandatory.

Absolutely agree!

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Rolling for panzerfausts, molotovs, and ATMM. Either you have them or you don't.

Huh. I'd go the other way and make all LATWs behave more like PFs. Or, at the very least, adopt a rule that lets them all stay secret until fired. It's one of the worst instances of player omniscience messing things up, IMO.

 

[Khill]

Huh. I'd go the other way and make all LATWs behave more like PFs. Or, at the very least, adopt a rule that lets them all stay secret until fired. It's one of the worst instances of player omniscience messing things up, IMO.

definitely: keep AFV's a tad more 'honest' to help mitigate freeze/sleaze. legit tactic (freeze/sleaze) but inherent LATW makes for even more desperate situation with harder decisions for AFV, and even possible ill effect for user, (not having any, forcing final fire, pin)

good grudge SSR

-

 

[Justiciar]

Rolling for panzerfausts, molotovs, and ATMM. Either you have them or you don't.

I think footnote 32 of Chap C, and in particular the closing 1/3 of it does a good job of explaining the current 'roll for it' design for effect quite well. I would not alter this rule.

 

[Eagle4ty]

When a squad is CR'ed, roll a dr for each carried SW : 1-3 the resulting HS keeps it ; 4-6 the SW is unpossessed.
I never understood why a surviving HS of a CR automatically keeps possession of the SW.

Probably a game mechanic that reinforces doctrine as once a gunner goes down with your most casualty producing weapon its common practice and HIGHLY stressed that weapon will immediately be recovered by whatever element is still in the fight.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Probably a game mechanic that reinforces doctrine as once a gunner goes down with your most casualty producing weapon its common practice and HIGHLY stressed that weapon will immediately be recovered by whatever element is still in the fight.

Absolutely agree!

In addition the Germans and Japanese started the trend to regard the LMG as THE squad weapon, everyone else was to support that. Even among the nations who regarded the LMG more as a support weapon, keeping that working would have still been essential.

 

[boylermaker]

Interestingly, when rafts casualty reduce, Robin's proposed rule is used, possibly because the rest of the squad can't recover the SWs from the bottom of the river [EXC: frogmen; probably Gurkhas for some reason].

 

[Robin Reeve]

Absolutely agree!

In addition the Germans and Japanese started the trend to regard the LMG as THE squad weapon, everyone else was to support that. Even among the nations who regarded the LMG more as a support weapon, keeping that working would have still been essential.

So there is no possibility that an important SW can be dropped when half a squad is eliminated.
This seems absolutely improbable.
OTOH all smoke grenades are automatically lost in a similar case.
That said, I live perfectly well with the RAW.
But I don't think that reality generates as absolute results as you believe.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

So there is no possibility that an important SW can be dropped when half a squad is eliminated.

I would not say NOT EVER possible, but given the importance that the survivors (the other HS) would place on that SW, its recovery and reactivation would be a very high priority. So I would be inclined to lose it on a dr of 6 at very worst (1/6).

Another thing to consider is to go back to the original SL intent of what a KIA means. It can, but not always, mean that everyone is dead. Often there will be survivors though they are in no condition to fight (wounded, shell shocked), at least in the time frame of a scenario. Unlike bailing out where SW have a good chance of being eliminated (run over by the tracks or left on the AFV to fall off and be lost a hex or two later), the SW will still be in the squads area/footprint. The SW could be in possession of an unaffected individual or be just a very short distance from an unaffected individual.

In addition most squad level SW had at least two manning it which means the probability of both being "KIA" goes from 1/2 for a single to 1/2*1/2=1/4 for a pair, if half a squad are "KIA". Somewhat heavier weapons like MMG/HMG usually had more than two manning them.

Overall a surviving HS retaining a SW I feel is a far closer reflection of reality than a 50% chance of retaining it.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Interesting, as usual.
Thanks.
One could perhaps hierarchise the importance of SWs : MG and LATW prioritary (loss on a 6 dr), DC (loss on a 5-6 ), FT (4-6).

 

[Ric of The LBC]

Interesting, as usual.
Thanks.
One could perhaps hierarchise the importance of SWs : MG and LATW prioritary (loss on a 6 dr), DC (loss on a 5-6 ), FT (4-6).

Like we need more rules.