Mister T
Elder Member
They have octopus-like abilities thenI am not sure, but I think Japanese leaders had access to grenades too.
JR
They have octopus-like abilities thenI am not sure, but I think Japanese leaders had access to grenades too.
JR
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,,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..
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.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?
that will obviously not do, JR. We need a counter. A whole bunch of them.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....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
TPBF and ADJACENT, IMHO.. this is a real thread.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.
Miguel,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!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
MGs never get CH, and this should remain like this.Finally that really long-shot opportunity for your LMG to kill the Tiger by sniping the crew through the vision slits!
Interesting thought with DRMs. I'd need to think about this more deeply, but is this really a problem...?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.